Rep. 706, where the jury found for the plaintiff, but Lord Holt thought the verdict wrong.

Also in Bedo v. Sanderson, Croke James, 440, the jury found for the plaintiff.

But in Seall qui tam v. Brent, 2 Term R. 238, and in Wright v. Wheeler, 1 Camp. 165, note, no doubt existed as to the corruption.

SECTION X

Where any extra sum is to be allowed for brokerage.

A lender is not allowed to make it the condition of the loan, that he shall receive a compensation for his services in procuring the money, as the allowing of such a demand would tend to usury and oppression, if it be not usury in itself. Hine v. Handy, 1 J. C. R. 6.

The charge of a commission of a half per cent. by a stock and exchange broker, in addition to the lawful interest on advances made on a deposit of stocks, as a compensation for transacting the business, is not usurious. Nourse v. Prime, 7 J. C. R. 69.

M requested J to procure a loan of money for the former, stipulating to pay J three per cent. per month. Jaccordingly borrowed the money of W. M gave his promissory note with an endorser. M paid J the three per cent. for his sole benefit. Held, that the note was not usurious. Coster v. Dilworth, 8 Cow. 299.<

Where a person applied to another to assist him in obtaining the loan of $400, and promised to give him $28 for procuring the loan, investigating the title and drawing the bond and mortgage therefor, and putting them on record, and the latter applied to his own father for a loan of the money for a year, at seven per cent., and agreed that the title should be investigated and the securities made and put upon record without expense to him, and the father consented to make the loan without knowing that his son was to receive any compensation from the borrower, for obtaining the money. Held, that the loan was not usurious, although the son when he took the bond and mortgage for the loan in the name of his father, included therein for his own benefit the $28 which the lender had agreed to give him for his services. Crane v. Hubbell, 7 Paige, 413.

In Harris v. Boston, 2 Camp. 348, Lord Ellenborough said, It will first be a question of fact whether the commission of two and a half per cent, exceeds what can be fairly and reasonably referred to the

plaintiff's trouble and risk, in making these purchases. If it does, then, by an inference of law, it must be ascribed to the advance and forbearance of the money, and the contract is usurious. If the plaintiffs would have duly made the purchases for one per cent., but charge £2 10s. besides legal interest, where they advance the money, this commission must be considered as an expedient for enhancing the rate of interest beyond £5 per cent., and is a mere color for usury.

In Palmer v. Baker, 1 Maule & Selwin, it was said, that the court has no scales nice enough to balance the trouble imposed upon the party; and without some proof to the contrary, the compensation must be taken to be a fair one. All commissions where a loan of money exists, must be ascribed to, and considered as, an excess beyond legal interest; unless as far as it is ascribable to trouble and expense bona fide incurred, in the course of the business transacted by the persons to whom such commission is paid; but whether any thing, and how much, is justly ascribable to this latter account, is always a question for the jury. See Carstairs v. Steen, 4 Maule & Selwyn, 192.

Where A receives B's note, on giving B his note at ten days, for the purpose of raising money on B's note, and pays B two and a half per cent. commission, this is a usurious loan, within the meaning of the statute. Dunham v. Dey, 13 J. R. 40. S. C in Error, 16 J. R. 367. For it is a mere shift or contrivance to evade the statute. Ibid. Evidence of usage of trade to take a commission on such exchange of paper, is inadmissible, as usage cannot prevail when the transaction comes within the statute. Ibid. S. C. 16, J. R. 367.

It seems that a person may lawfully receive a commission for becoming security for another. Ibid.

The plaintiffs, who were in the practice of receiving produce for the defendant, a country merchant, and freighting the same to the city of New York, and accepting his drafts under an engagement that the produce was to be in their warehouse, at or before the time the drafts became payable, charged a commission of two and a half per cent. on all advances made by them, to meet the payment of the drafts, where the defendants had no funds in their hands, and also the interest from the time the different items of their account became due: Held, that the commissions in this case were not usurious, or a cover for a usurious transaction; but a customary allowance for the trouble and inconvenience of transacting the business. Trotter & others v. Curtiss, 19 J. R. 160.

Where the defendant advanced his notes to the plaintiff for the plaintiff's notes for the same sums, payable at or near the same peri

ods, for which exchange of notes the defendant received a commission of two and a half per cent. on the amount; and the notes when they became due were renewed, and new notes given in exchange; and this renewal and exchange were many times repeated, and the defendant on each renewal and exchange received a commission of two and a half per cent., but which was less than the lawful interest on the amount of the notes, for each time they had to run: Held, that the trasaction was not usurious, it being a compensation only for a loan of credit and risk. Dey v. Dunham, 2 J. C. R. 182.

But where D lent F his promissory notes, and received the notes of F for the same amount, in exchange, and also a commission of two . and a half per cent., which exceeded the legal interest for the time the notes had to run: Held, that the transaction was usurious, and the notes and other securities given by F void. Fanning v. Dunham, 5 J. C. R. 122, [and see Dunham v. Gould in error, 16 J. R. 367.]

The charge of a commission of a half per cent. by a stock and exchange broker, in addition to the lawful interest, on advances made on a deposit of stocks, as a compensation for transacting the business, is not usurious. Nourse v. Prime, 7 J. C. R. 69.

M requested J to procure a loan of money for the former, stipulating to pay J three per cent. per month. J accordingly borrowed the money of W. M gave his promissory note with an endorser. M paid J the three per cent. for his sole benefit. Held, that the note was not usurious. Foster v. Dilworth 8, Cow. 299.

Where goods fraudulently obtained are deposited with an auctioneer, who makes an advance upon them, and charges five per cent. besides the usual commissions, the transaction is usurious; and for that cause the auctioneer is not entitled to be considered a bona fide purchaser, in an action of trover brought against him by the party from whom the goods were obtained, although he is wholly innocent of the fraud. Ramsdell & Brown v. Morgan, 16 Wend. 574.

Where the holder of a note payable to himself, requested another person to procure the note to be discounted, who by placing his name. upon it as an endorser procured it to be done, received the avails and paid over the same, except the sum of thirty dollars, which he retained for his endorsement and trouble in the matter; it was held, that the transaction was usurious, and that the, usury might be alleged in bar of a recovery of a subsequently substituted note. Steele v. Whipple,

21 Wend. 103.

S, a commission merchant in the city of New York, agreed to accept drafts of N to the amount of $20,000, taking a bond and mort

gage from him for twice that sum, as security; and it was further agreed that all produce shipped to New York by N, should be sent to S, for sale on commission; that the latter should thus be kept in funds to meet his acceptances as they became due, and that he should be entitled to two and a half per cent. commission on all advances or acceptances met otherwise than with produce. N's drafts were afterwards accepted and paid by S to an amount exceeding the value of the produce consigned, and he charged N with interest on all sums thus paid, together with two and a half per cent. commissions on acceptances not met with produce. Held, in an action by S to recover the sum advanced upon one of the drafts, that the transaction was not necessarily usurious; especially as it appeared that the charge for commissions was customary among merchants engaged in similar business. Cwen J. dissenting, whose opinion on usurious loans of credit, see in Suydam v. Westfall, 4 Hill, 211.

The bona fide sale of one's credit by way of guaranty or endorsement, though for a compensation exceeding the lawful rate of interest, is not usurious, if the transaction be unconnected with a loan between the parties. Ketchum v. Barker, 4 Hill, 224.

M, being desirous of raising money by a note at four months drawn by himself and endorsed for his accommodation by B and L, authorized a broker to buy an additional name, or guaranty, for the purpose of getting the note discounted. Application was accordingly made to K, also a broker, who endorsed the note on receiving a commission of two and a half per cent., and it was then discounted at a bank. About the time it fell due, M made another note, corresponding in amount, which, after being endorsed, was discounted by K, and the proceeds applied in payment of the first. The second note not being met at maturity, K brought an action upon it against the makers and endorsers, which was referred, and the referee reported in K's favour. Held, on motion to set aside the report, that the taking of the commission by K did not render the transaction per se usurious, and the motion was therefore denied. Ibid. Cowen dissenting, holding that the transaction between K and M, in respect to the first note, was not a sale, in any sense, but amounted to a usurious loan of K's credit; and the note in question having come to his hands by way of further security on extension of the loan, was void. Various English and American cases reviewed.

Where a person applied to another to assist him in obtaining the loan of $400, and promised to give him $28 for procuring the loan, investigating the title, and drawing the bond and mortgage therefor,

and putting them on record; and the latter applied to his own father for a loan of the money for a year at seven per cent., and agreed that the title should be investigated and the securities made and put upon record without expense to him, and the father consented to make the loan without knowing that his son was to receive any compensation from the borrower for obtaining the money: Held, that the loan was not usurious, although the son when he took the bond and mortgage for the loan in the name of his father included therein for his own benefit the $28, which the lender had agreed to give him for his services. Crane v. Hubbell, 7 Paige, 413.

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.

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 a usurious loan; it was held, that the commissions charged under such agreement were not usurious-on jury finding. Defaut et al v. Strong, & Conn. 513.

A owes B $5,000, and, when it becomes due, it is agreed that A shall endorse notes on different individuals, not yet due to B, in payment thereof, and deduct four per cent. a month for the time the notes had to run; and also procure another endorser, which was accordingly done. Held, that this transaction was usurious, and that the subsequent endorser could take advantage of it. Martin & Yerger, 392. 1 Yerger, 243, 444.

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,