15. In an action qui tam for usury, the plaintiff alleged a loan by the defendant to A for sixty-three days, and produced in evidence a note, executed by A and B jointly and severally, payable to the defendant in sixty days, held to be a fatal variance. Wilmot v. Munner, 4 Day, 114.

16. In an action against the endorser of a promissory note, the maker, for whose accommodation the defendant endorsed the note, and who executed a mortgage deed to the defendant as a security, was held to be an inadmissible witness for the defendant to support a defence of usury, being interested in the event of the suit. Cowls v. Wilcox, 4 Day, 108.

17. In pursuance of a corrupt agreement, A loaned a sum of money to B, and took his note, reserving a usurious interest, payable in thirty days, and endorsed by C and D as sureties. When this note became due, it was agreed between C and A that A should give it up to C; in consideration of which C would give A his note, payable in ninety days, and endorsed by D. Afterwards, while the first note remained in the hands of C and the second in the hands of A, both unpaid, it was corruptly agreed between A, B, and C, upon a usurious consideration,, that A should give further day of payment for the amount of the second note, to be secured by D's note, payable to C, and endorsed by C to A; in consideration of which, C was to give up the first note to B, and A the second note to C. This arrangement was carried into effect. In an action on the last note, in the name of C against D, the defendant pleaded usury, stating these facts, and it was held to be a good defence. Fields v. Goram, 4 Day, 251.

18. A loaned to B $800, and as security takes an absolute deed of a piece of land of much greater value than the sum loaned, under a parol agreement that B may fedeem the land upon repayment of the loan, with interest at twelve per cent. per annum, and that B shall hold possession of the land and pay to A $48 per annum for the rent. B afterwards executes to A his promissory note for the simple interest of the money loaned under the name of rent. Held, that such transaction is usurious, and the note void. Michell v. Preston, 5 Day, 100.

19. A made his promissory note to B, upon a usurious agreement. B transferred the note to C. In a suit on the note against A, in the name of B, A, with a full knowledge of the transfer, procured and pleaded the release of B, in bar; whereupon C brought his action against A for the fraud. Held, that such action was not sustainable, on the ground that the note was usurious. Bacon v. Norton, 5 Day, 128.

20. Where the security given in pursuance of a usurious agree

ment was a bill drawn upon and accepted by A, payable to and endorsed by B, without notice of the usury; it was held that B, who had paid the amount of the bill to an endorsee, could not recover against A, either in an action on the bill or in a count for money paid to the defendant's use. A party to a negotiable instrument, who is divested of his interest, is a competent witness to prove it usurious in its creation. K. & E. Townsend v. Bush, 1 Conn. 260.

21. The sale of a promissory note, endorsed by the seller at a discount exceeding the lawful rate of interest, is not in all cases usurious, but it is prima facie valid; and it is incumbent on the party claiming it to be usurious to show the circumstances which bring it within the statute. In an action against the maker of a promissory note, which was valid in its inception, brought by an endorsee, who took of the payee on a usurious consideration, the defendant may avail himself of such intermediate usury to impeach the plaintiff's right to sue. Lloyd v. Keach, 2 Conn. 175.

22. To take a compensation exceeding the lawful rate of interest for obtaining money at a bank, on one's own security, for the use of another, is not usury. If such compensation be unreasonable and extravagant, though it will not necessarily contaminate the contract with usury, yet it may furnish evidence of an intent in this way to cover an usurious loan; and whether the transaction is, in its nature and design, a compensation for time, trouble, and expense, or a cover for usury, is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. Hutchinson v. Henner, 2 Conn. 341.

t

23. A held a promissory note, given by B on a usurious consideration, and endorsed by C. as his surety. B, being in failing circumstances, C applied to A for the note, that he might secure it out of B's estate, and offered to give A his own note for it, which was agreed to and done. Held, that C's note so given was usurious; the transaction being a mere substitution of one security for another, by parties to the original usury. And afterwards C obtained payment of B's note by a suit thereon against him, and was thereby fully indemnified; in consideration of which he, C, gave a new note to A for the amount. Held, that the latter note was not usurious. Botsford v. Sanford, 2 Conn. 276.

24. A, having given a usurious security, paid the amount thereof to B, who was surety for him, and B, in consequence of such payment, gave his own note to the creditor for the same amount. Held, that the latter note was given on a new consideration, and was uninfected with usury. Scott v. Lewis, 2 Conn. 132.

25. Where A, being a bona fide purchaser, for a valuable consideration, of a note infected with usury given by B to C, gave up that note, and in consideration thereof B gave a new one to A for the same amount; it was held that the latter note was not usurious, Church v. Tomlinson, 2 Conn. 134.

26. The defendant, in an action qui tam for taking usury, having placed his defence on the ground that the sum received by him beyond the lawful interest was a compensation for time, trouble, and expense, in obtaining the money from certain banks and running his note, offered in evidence sundry notes signed by him, payable at the banks specified, corresponding in date and amount with the statement, which after being discounted at such banks had been duly paid by the defendant, and were respectively endorsed, paid at the bank: Held, that these notes were admissible, as they conduced to prove the fact on which the defence rested.

In the same action, on a loan of $850, secured by a note of $950, dated October 2d, 1811, the plaintiff offered to prove that in March, 1813, the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to pay, and afterwards did pay, unlawful interest on a balance at that time due on said note. Held, that such evidence was irrelevant, because it was not the fact charged in the declaration. 2 Conn. 341.

27. Where a second mortgagee, on an application in Chancery for a foreclosure, wishing to avoid a prior mortgage, offered evidence of usury in that mortgage, without having made any allegation of usury in his bill; it was held, that the evidence, for want of such allegation, was inadmissible. Some argument in this case as to the right of second mortgagee to avoid the first mortgage for usury at all. Baldwin v. Norton et al. 2 Conn. 161.

28. In an action on a promise to pay $88, in current bank bills, such as pass at Norfolk between man and man, to which the defence was usury; the defendant having proved that the consideration was only $80 in specie, the plaintiff, to repel this defence, offered to prove that such bills, at the date of the contract, were worth ten per cent. less than their nominal amount. It was held, that this was a promise to deliver bank notes of the specified description to the nominal amount of $88, and that therefore such evidence was relevant and proper. Phelps et al. v. Riley, 3 Conn. 266.

29. In an action of ejectment, evidence of usury in the consideration of a mortgage deed, by virtue of which the plaintiffs claim title, was held to be adinissible as a defence under the general issue without notice A general notice of usury, without stating therein the

facts relied on, in a case in which notice is necessary, is insufficient. Holton v. Button, 4 Conn. 436:

30. A sheriff having demanded payment of an execution in his hands against the defendant, which was nearly out, the defendant made his promissory note, payable to the order of a third person, and by him endorsed in blank, and delivered it to the sheriff, contracting with him, that if the defendant, should not pay the execution in ten days, it might be sold in market, or otherwise disposed of, and the avails applied in payment of the execution. After the expiration of the ten days, the execution remaining unpaid, the sheriff delivered the note in the state in which he received it to the plaintiffs, on their advancing to him a sum of money less than the face of the note, by more than the legal interest for the time the note had to run. Held, that the note so received by the sheriff was in security of the execution, that he had an interest in it, coupled with a power to sell, and that, consequently, it was an effective instrument in his hands; and not being usurious in its original concoction, it did not become so by the subsequent sale to the plaintiffs. Tuttle & Holt v. Clarke, 4 Conn. 153.

31. When an instrument contaminated with usury is taken up, and a new one substituted by the parties to secure to the creditor the original debt, the substituted as well as the original security is usurious and void. And it makes no difference, whether the party in whose name the substituted security is given, was privy to, or ignorant of the original corrupt agreement. Wales v. Webb, 5 Conn. 154.

32, The borrower of money on an usurious consideration may waive the benefit of the statute by making payments; and if he pay the usurious debt to a third person, a new security given by such thirdperson in consideration thereof, will, in the absence of any contrivance to evade the statute, be valid.

Therefore, where A took the promissory note of B, on an usurious consideration, and afterwards, in pursuance of an agreement between them, B substituted the bond of C, procured from C in consideration of B's promising to pay him the amount thereof, which B in fact paid; held that this transaction amounted to a voluntary waiver of the statute by B, and that such bond executed on a new consideration, and with no design in any one to evade the statute, was valid. Wales V. Webb, 5 Conn. 154. `

it

was

33. The principal sum for which the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in an action on a promissory note after a bill of usury under the statute filed by the defendant and a finding in his favor, is the sum

justly due on such note without the allowance of interest on that instrument. Therefore, where A, in 1806, loaned a sum of money to B, on usurious interest, secured by B's note; and at the end of each successive year, a new note was taken for the amount of the next preceding note, including usurious interest until 1819, when a new note was taken for the amount of the last note, bearing lawful interest; an action being afterwards brought by A on the note, B filed his bill of usury; and the court, upon these facts, having expunged all the usurious interest, and the lawful interest on the note in suit, rendered judgment for the plaintiff to recover the sum of money originally loaned in 1806, and lawful interest thereon, compounded annually until the date of the note in suit. It was held that such judgment was correct. Sheldon v. Steeve, 5 Conn. 181.

34. An absolute deed of land, given to secure the repayment of money loaned on usurious interest may, as between the parties to such deed, be avoided by parol proof of the usury. See 5 Day, 100.

35. But no person other than the oppressed party to a usurious contract, can avoid such contract on the ground of usury. Reading v. Weston, 7 Conn., 409.

36. Usury may be shown as a defence to a bill of foreclosure. Cowls et al. v. Woodruff et al, 8 Conn. 35.

37. Where a note made in 1825 for discount at the Eagle Bank, was discounted by that institution upon the principle of Rowlett's Tables, reckoning sixty days as the sixth of a year, and three days as the tenth of a month, it was held, that whether such note was usurious in its inception or not, the defence of usury (assuming its existence) was taken away by the validating act of 1827, which makes such mode of casting interest valid, if no other usury is contained therein. Savings Bank v. Bates, 8 Conn. 505.

38. Where it was agreed between A, a commission merchant in New York, and B, a country trader, that on being furnished with a letter of indemnity, A would become responsible to a limited amount, and charge for lending his name, if put in funds in time to meet the payment, half a per cent., and two and a half per cent. in all cases of advance; and it appeared that the latter charge was intended by the parties as a fair compensation to A for his trouble in providing for acceptances which it was the duty of B to pay, and not as a cover for usurious loan; it was held that the commissions charged under such agreement were not usurious-on jury finding-Defaut et al. v. Strong, 8 Conn. 513.

39. There is a settled distinction between usurious contracts