33. In Marsh v. Martindale, 3 Bos. & Pul. 159, the jury expressly found that the plaintiff was clear of any intention to violate the law. But Lord Alvanly says, that an agreement to take more than five per cent. is a corrupt agreement within the meaning of the act, whether the party thinks he acts contrary to the statute or not, and that the agreement in that case was corrupt, whatever was the intention.

34. It is not usurious, upon a settlement of accounts, to take a bond or note for the balance due including interest, and to receive interest on such bond or note. Brown v. Bunt, 1 Hen. & Munf. 4.

35. The sale of a bond for much less than its nominal amount, is not of itself usurious.

36. A bond given in the alternative to pay a specified sum of money, or such further sum as would be sufficient to purchase as much property as such specified sum would purchase at a period antecedent to the date of the bond, held not to be usurious. 2 Hen. & Munf 550.

37. J B, being indebted to certain British merchants, conveyed a tract of land and sundry slaves in trust, to secure the payment of the debt, in three equal annual instalments, with interest from the date of the deed of trust, the payment to be made in tobacco, to be delivered at, and addressed to them in London, on which they were to draw the usual accustomed mercantile commission of 21s. sterling, for each hogshead actually shipped. And it was further provided, that in case of non-shipment of the tobacco, a further sum equivalent to, and in lieu of the usual accustomed mercantile commission thereon, at the rate of 21s. sterling per hogshead, estimating each hogshead to be worth £10 sterling, was to be added to each payment: Held, that the transaction was usurious, and the deed of trust void. Dunbar v. Long, 4 Hen. & Munf. 212.

38. In cases of usury, the borrower filing his bill in equity, is entitled to relief, not against the contract entirely, but to the amount of all but the principal money; the lender being entitled to receive his principal without any interest. In such cases, though relief be given against the interest, the usurious assurances remain as a security for the principal, and the court will direct them to be enforced to that extent, if it be not paid by a given day. Marks v. Morris, 4 Hen. & Munf. 463.

39. It is not usury to sell bank stock at a very high price; since, to constitute usury, there must be a treaty for the loan or forbearance of money. 4 Hen. & Munf. 490.

40. A defendant may plead to a scire facias brought to revive a

decree, which was obtained against him by default, that the original contract was usurious. Lane v. Ellzy, 4 Hen. & Munf. 504.

41. C, wanting to raise $2,335, tells J this, and offers him as many slaves as will command that sum; upon which J pays him $2,335, in gross, for sixteen slaves, and C gives him a bill of sale thereof and it is at the same time agreed that the slaves shall remain in C's possession, on hire for one year; and if at the end of the year C shall pay J $2,935, J shall, in consideration thereof, resell the slaves to him. If any of the slaves die during the year, C to pay same price and no less for survivors; and if C shall not pay the $2,935 punctually, J's agreement to resell to him to be void: Held, a shift to evade the statute of usury, and contract usurious.

42. C, contracting usurious debt to G, gives him a deed of trust of slaves to secure it; afterwards C voluntarily surrenders trust slaves to trustee, to be sold to satisfy the debt; at trustee's sale, in itself fair, G buys greater part of trust slaves, and the proceeds of sales are applied to the debt: Held, though deed of trust usurious, yet trustee's sale of the subject to G, the usurious creditor, shall not be disturbed in equity. Though where one resorts to equity for relief against usurious debt, yet unpaid, he shall be required to pay only the principal advanced to him, without even lawful interest, according to the statute of Virginia; yet where debtor seeks in equity an account of and decree for money already paid, on usurious contract, the measure of relief is the excess paid above principal and lawful interest; and if his payments exceed principal and lawful interest, the surplus and interest shall be decreed to him. Clark v. Garland, 1 Leigh, 147.

usury two

In a bill for relief against usury plaintiff charges usury exacted at a rate of two and a half or three per cent. per month: defendant, in his answer, admits he exacted usury, but says he does not remember the rate; and there is no proof to ascertain the rate: Held, that in this state of the case, the court should consider the rate of and a half per cent. per month. Fulcher v. Baker, 1 Leigh, 453. 43. M borrows money of L, on usury, and by deed of trust conveys land to a trustee, with power to sell the subject when required after debt should fall due, and raise money to pay it; the lender dies, his administrators require trustee to sell trust subject; the borrower exhibits a bill in chancery charging the usury, requiring defendants to answer the charge; insisting that the deed of trust is null and void, and praying injunction to restrain trustee from selling; the administrators of the lender and the trustee disclaim all knowledge of the usury; but the usury is proved by one witness: Held, that in such case the

court of chancery should enjoin the trustee from selling the trust subject, till the creditors claiming under it should establish its legal validity. in some proper forum, where the debtor may have an opportunity to contest it. Martin v. Lindsey, 1 Leigh, 499.

Same case again discussed in 2 Leigh, 626.

44. Question, whether under the circumstances of the transactions, a sale of bank stock upon a credit at par, the cash value of the stock at the time of sale being twenty per cent. below par, was a bona fide sale, or an usurious transaction under cover of a pretended sale?

45. S, being under urgent necessity to raise a sum of money, requests M to assist his agent in negotiating a loan thereof at a bank; M lends his assistance, but the bank refuses to lend the money. Then M proposes to S to sell him bank stock at par, upon credit, the stock being then twenty per cent. below par in the market; and M enters into a negotiation with the bank to borrow the money S wanted, for S, upon a pledge of the stock. The bank offers to lend the money upon a pledge of the stock and S's note endorsed by M; and M, having thus settled the terms of the loan with the bank, sells his stock to S at par, on a credit, and immediately the bank lends S a sum equal to fourfifths of the par value of the stock, on a pledge of the stock and S's note endorsed by M: Held, this is a fair sale of bank stock by M to S, and not a device to cover a usurious loan of money. Siby v. Morgan, 3 Leigh, 577.

46. T & N, being indebted to the bank, and the bank having recovered judgment against them for the debts, and the debtors applying to the bank for indulgence, the bank agrees to give them a long indulgence, upon their agreeing to give real security for the debt, and moreover to pay the attorney of the bank all the costs of the suits, and the commission which the bank had agreed to give him for collecting and securing the debt. The debtors give the real security for the debt, and one of them pays the costs and part of the commissions of the attorney, and his executor gives the attorney his note for the balance of the commissions; the attorney having full notice of the terms of the agreement between the bank and the debtors: Held, the agree ment between the bank and the debtors, and therefore the note for the commissions to the attorney, were usurious. Decree between codefendants refused under the circumstances. Toole v. Stephen, 4 Leigh, 581.

47. The Farmers' Bank discounted a note for $6,000, payable on its face sixty days after date, for the accommodation of the maker; it was understood that the accommodation would be continued indefi

nitely, till it should suit the interest or convenience of the bank or of the party to discontinue it, the bank reserving a right to discontinue at its own discretion or pleasure, and the party also having a right to discontinue it at pleasure, and for the purpose of so discontinuing it the note should be renewed from time to time. The accommodation was in fact so continued upon such renewed notes from the 21st of April, 1825, to the 4th of May, 1826; the bank, in discounting the first note, deducted and retained to itself the interest for sixty-four days, i. e. for the time the note had to run, including the days of grace, counting the interest from the day of the date to the last day of grace, both inclusive; and in discounting the second note, made on the last day of grace of the first, deducted and retained to itself the interest for sixty-four days, counting from the day of the date of the second and last day of grace of the first to the last day of grace of the second note, both inclusive; and so on, upon each renewed note successively, to the end of the transaction; so that the bank received, in fact, double interest for every sixty-fourth day; and this was in conformity of the known usage of the bank, and of all the banks of Virginia: Held, the transaction was in nowise usurious. Breckenbridge, Justice, dissenting. Trump v. Nicholas, 6 Leigh, 251.

48. Though where one resorts to equity for relief against a usurious debt not yet paid, he shall be required to pay only the principal advanced to him without even legal interest, according to the third section of the statute of Virginia, yet where the debtor seeks in equity an account of, and decree for money already paid on a usurious contract, the measure of relief is the excess paid above principal and legal interest; the surplus with interest shall be decreed to him.

49. A mortgages land to B, and then executes a deed of trust to secure another debt to C. A bill in chancery is filed by B against A, to foreclose the mortgage, and A resists the foreclosure on the ground that the debt secured by the mortgage is usurious; pending this suit the land is sold under the deed of trust for the debt due to C, and C becomes the purchaser for the amount due to him, the land being so sold by the trustee to C, subject to B's mortgage, A the mortgagor being present and admitting that the mortgage debt was to be paid, and C having no notice of B's mortgage being usurious, C takes possession and afterwards sells the land to B the mortgagee. Many years after, and after B's death, the suit brought by B against A to foreclose the mortgage is dismissed by B's representatives. Upon a bill brought by A to set aside the sale to B and to redeem the mortgage: Held, 1, The sale shall not be set aside; and 2, as C pur

chased subject to B's mortgage, and then sold to B, the sale to B was in effect a payment of the debt due on A's mortgage to B; so that though the mortgage debt was usurious, yet having been thus paid, A is entitled only to the excess above principal and legal interest, with interest on such excess. Spengler v. Snapp, 5 Leigh, 478..

50. A debtor owing a debt due, agrees to give the creditor his bond for it payable at a future day, and to add to the debt and insert in the bond a sum equal to five per cent. on the debt, to cover commission, which the creditor might be compelled to pay an agent for collection; and the bond is given accordingly for the aggregate, including the commission, with a verbal agreement that if the debtor should pay the debt punctually, he should be exempted from the payment of the sum inserted in the bond for commission for collection. In debt on the bond and issue joined on the plea of usury; Held, 1. Parol evidence is admissible to prove the verbal agreement as to the sum allowed for commission. 2. The contract is not usurious, since the debtor might, by punctual payment of the debt, relieve himself from payment of the sum he contracted for commission. 3. The creditor stipulating that the debtor should pay the commission which would be incurred in the collection, in default of punctual payment, if made in good faith to cover such commission, and not as a device to evade the statute of usury, was, in point of law, not usurious; and the court ought so to direct the jury; leaving the jury the question of fact whether the contract for commission was made in good faith, or was an evasion of the statute. Campbell v Shields, 6 Leigh, 517.

51. A proposition is made by S to the directors of the bank that he would purchase one hundred shares of the stock of the bank of $100 each at par, and that the bank should discount for him a note of $8,000 on a pledge of the stock at $80 the share, upon the faith of the expectation, that if the proposition should be acceded to, the bank would discount for him another note of $2,000 on the personal security of endorsers, so as to make up the sum of $10,000, which he said he was desirous to raise for his present exigencies; and upon condition that the bank should not call upon him for the money for eighteen months-to which the directors of the bank answer, that they will sell him one hundred shares of stock at par, for the price whereof, they will receive and discount his note for $10,000, secured not by a pledge of the stock, but by other persons joining him as makers of the note and an endorser, the note to be regularly renewed every sixty days and the discounts paid according to the custom of the bank for and during the term of eighteen months; and also that