Sec 170

Where there is no statue forbidding usury, courts of equity feel it peculiarly incumbent on them to revise contracts exacting extortionate interest. "One great effect of such repeal was to bring into operation to a greater extent than formerly another branch of the jurisdiction of this court which existed long before; that principle of the court which prevented any oppressive bargain, or any advantage exacted from a man under necessity and want of money, from prevailing against him-the moment the usury laws were repealed, and the lender of money became entitled to exact anything he pleased in the name of interest, from that moment that jurisdiction of the court, which prevailed independently of the usury laws, was likely to be called into active operation."1

Extortion-ate contracts more open to revision since repeal of usury laws.

1 Pollock, 3d ed. 596, citing Ayles-ford v. Morris, L. R. 8 Ch. 490 ; O'Rorke v. Bolingbroke, 2 App. Cas. 814.

2 2 Story Eq. sec 1040; Spence's Eq. Jur. sec 852 ; 1 Sug. V. & P. 8th Am. ed. 426 : Shelly v. Nash, 3 Mad. 232; Lord v. Jeffkins, 35 Bear. 7 ; Nevill v. Snell-ing, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 679.

3 Cook v. Field, 15 Q. B. 460; O'Rorke v. Bolingbroke, L. R. 2 App. Cas. 814; Savery v. King, 5 H. L. C. 627; Edwards v. Burt, 2 D. M. & G. 55 ; Jenkins v. Pye, 12 Pet. 241 ; Poor v. Hazleton, 15 N. H. 564; Boynton v. Hubbard, 7 Mass. 112 ; Fitch v. Fitch, 8 Pick. 480 ; Powers' Appeal, 63 Penn. St. 443 ; Field v. Mayor, etc., 2 Seld. 179; Bacon v. Bonham, 33 N. J. Eq.

614, and other cases cited Bispham's Eq.sec 220.

4 Sugden V. & P. 11th ed. 316; Bispham's Eq. sec 220; Aylesford v. Morris, L. R. 8 Ch. 491, modifying King v. Hamlet, 2 My. & K. 456. That such a transaction is in fraud of the ancestor see Heap v. Morris, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 630.

5 Wharton v. May, 5 Ves. 27, 68, 69; Evans v. Peacock, 16 Ves. 512; Boynton v. Hubbard, 7 Mass. 112 ; Williams v. Man. Co., 1 Md. Ch. 306, 3 Md. Ch. 420. In Pennsylvania, in ejectment to enforce a trust of this class, it seems a previous tender is not necessary. Seylar v. Carson, 69 Penn. St. 81 ; Smull v. Jones, 1 W. & S. 128 ; Hall v. Vanness, 49 Penn. St. 457.

1 Stuart, V. C, Barrett v. Hartley, 669 ; cited Leake, 2d ed. 430. As to L. R. 2 Eq. 795 ; Miller v. Cook, L. R. usurious contracts, see infra, sec 461 10 Eq. 641; Tyler v. Yates, L. R. 6 Ch. et seq.