Same - Unlawful Intent

There must be an intention to charge and pay the illegal rate.95 Ignorance of the law will not protect a party from the penalties of usury where it is committed; but where there was no intention to evade the law, and the facts which would otherwise constitute usury can be shown to be the result of mistake or accident, no penalty by agent as condition of making loan at legal interest for his principal, without knowledge or consent of the latter, does not constitute usury in the principal. Stillman v. Northrup, 109 N. Y. 473, 17 N. E. 379; New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Townes (Miss.) 1 South. 242; Acheson v. Chase, 28 Minn. 211, 9 N. W. 734; Ballinger v. Bourland, 87 I11. 513, 29 Am. Rep. 69; Boylston v. Bain, 90 I11. 283; Williams v. Bryan, 68 Tex. 593, 5 S. W. 401; Lane v. Insurance Co., 46 N. J. Eq. 316, 19 Atl. 617, 618; May v. Flint, 54 Ark. 573, 16 S. W. 575; Boardman v. Taylor, 66 Ga. 638; Ammerman v. Ross, 84 Iowa, 359, 51 N. W. 6; Dryfus v. Burnes (C. C.) 53 Fed. 410. Not even where agent is general agent of lender to loan money, if illegal exaction is solely for agent's benefit, and without knowledge or sanction of lender, and he in no way ratifies it. Stein v. Swensen, 44 Minn. 218, 46 N. W. 360. But see Kemmitt v. Adamson, 44 Minn. 121, 46 N. W. 327. If the principal knows of exaction, contract is usurious. Banks v. Flint, 54 Ark. 40, 14 S. W. 7G9, 16 S. W. 477, 10 L. R. A. 459; Bliven v. Lydecker, .130 N. Y. 102, 28 N. E. 625; Payne v. Newcomb, 100 I11. 611, 39 Am. Rep. 69. Payment to attorney for examining title., Goodwin v. Bishop, 145 I11. 421, 34 N. E. 47. Bonus paid by borrower to his own agent for procuring loan is no part of sum paid for loan. Dryfus v. Burnes (C. C.) 53 Fed. 410; Goodwin v. Bishop, 145 I11. 421, 34 N. E. 47; Grieser v. Hall, 56 Minn. 155, 57 N. W. 462. But see, contra, where lender knew of payment. Brown v. Brown, 38 S. C. 173, 17 S. E. 452. And see Holt v. Kirby, 57 Ark. 251, 21 S. W. 432. See "Usury," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 55-57; Cent. Dig. §§ 119-129.

93 Sherwood v. Roundtree (C. C.) 32 Fed. 113; Pfenning v. Scholer, 43 N. J. Eq. 15, 10 Atl. 833; Sanford v. Kane, 133 I11. 199, 24 N. E. 414, 8 L. R. A. 724, 23 Am. St. Rep. 602. See "Usury," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 55-57; Cent. Dig. §§ 119-129.

94 Barr's Adm'x v. African M. E. Church (N. J. Eq.) 10 Atl. 287. Cf. Daley v. Investment Co., 43 Minn. 517, 45 N. W. 1100; Rose v. Munford, 36 Neb. 148, 54 N. W. 129. See "Usury," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 43; Cent. Dig. § 97.

95 Tyson v. Rickard, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 109, 5 Am. Dec. 424; Bevier v. Covell, 87 N. Y. 50; Gibson v. Stearns, 3 N. H. 185; Smythe v. Allen, 67 Miss. 146, 6 South. 627; Bearce v. Bartsow, 9 Mass. 45, 6 Am. Dec. 25; Brown v. Bank, 86 Iowa, 527, 53 N. W. 410; Lloyd v. Scott, 4 Pet. 205, 7 L. Ed. 833; Price v. Campbell, 2 Call (Va.) 110, 1 Am. Dec. 535; McFarland v. Bank, 4 Ark. 44, 37 Am. Dec. 761; Henry v. Sansom, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 150, 21 S. W. 69; McElfatrick v. Hicks, 21 Pa. 402. A conscious purpose to commit usury is not necessary. "If they intended what amounts to usury, then In legal effect they intended usury." In re Fishel, Nessler & Co. (D. C.) 192 Fed. 412, and note. See "Usury," Dee. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. §§ 23, 24, 146.

attaches.96 Thus, if a contract reserves excessive interest merely because of a mistaken calculation, it is not for that reason usurious. A note given between the original parties for a balance due on previous notes which were usurious, or in renewal of usurious notes, is itself tainted with usury; 97 but a renewal note given to a subsequent bona fide holder of the original note is not usurious,98 nor is a note given to a third party for money to be applied in payment of other notes which were usurious.99