The facts in this case are stated in some detail in the opinion delivered by Brayton, C. J. It was sent to a master, and now comes before the court again upon exceptions by both parties to his report.

The complainant objects to the allowance of interest. He made a tender, but he did not retain the money tendered, nor did he pay it into court. He does not claim that he has lost any interest in consequence of his tender not having been accepted. And besides, we think the question of interest was considered settled in the former decree.

The amount the respondent was obliged to pay for raising money was properly allowed under the circumstances, and we do. *218 not think there is any evidence to justify us in setting aside the master’s report as to rent.

The respondent claims $100 per annum as compensation, or five per cent, commission, and to this the complainant objects. We think 2& per cent, a reasonable allowance.

The parties have also been heard upon the question of costs.

In this case the respondent was decreed to hold in trust for the complainant, and to hold the land as security for the moneys advanced by him. The rules which apply in the case of mortgages, therefore, apply substantially here.

Where the mortgagee contests the right to redeem or the amount due, and the question is one which might fairly and honestly be disputed, or where the accounts are complicated, he would generally be allowed his costs. And on the other hand, where his conduct has been fraudulent or oppressive, or where there is any gross misconduct, he might be decreed to pay costs.

In the present case, there is no charge of fraud against the respondent, nor any evidence whatever of fraud. He undertook the business to befriend the complainant; and with the understanding (as he alleges) that if the complainant did not raise the money by a certain day, the land was to be his own. He subsequently extended this time. Afterwards misunderstandings arose between them which led to this litigation, as to which we think both parties are in fault. The complainant himself is certainly to blame for dilatoriness. And on the whole, we think the most substantial justice will be done by letting the complainant pay his own costs and the costs of court, and the respondent paying his own costs. Decree accordingly.