At common law a man could contract for and recover any amount of interest for a loan of money that the borrower might be willing to give; but, to protect persons in necessity against unconscionable exactions, usury laws have been enacted in most of the states, prescribing a legal rate of interest.

In some states the contract in which usury is charged is declared void. In many states the contract is not void, but the entire interest is forfeited. In other states only the excess of interest charged is forfeited; the legal amount is nevertheless recoverable.

Am. Dec. 49. Contra, Smith v. Bean, 15 N. H. 577, 578; Kinney v. McDer-mott, 55 Iowa, 674, 8 N. W. 656, 39 Am. Rep. 191. See, also, Simpson v. Nichols, 3 M. & W. 244, as corrected in 5 M. & W. 702 (questioning Williams v. Paul, 6 Bing. 653). See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 15; Cent. Dig. § 46.

68 Winfield v. Dodge, 45 Mich. 355, 7 N. W. 906, 40 Am. Rep. 476; Haacke v. Knights of Liberty, 76 Md. 429, 25 Atl. 422; Brewster v. Banta, 66 N. J. Law, 367, 49 Atl. 718. An action may be maintained on a new promise: Williams v. Paul, 6 Bing. 653; Harrison v. Colton, 31 Iowa, 16; Melchoir v. McCarty, 31 Wis. 252, 11 Am. Rep. 605. See Winchell v. Cary, 115 Mass. 560, 15 Am. Rep. 151. Contra, Bontelle v. Melendy, 19 N. H. 196, 49 Am. Dec. 152; Kountz v. Price, 40 Miss. 341. See "Sunday," Dec Dig. (Key-No.) § 15; Cent. Dig. § 46.

69 Bradley v. Rea, 14 Allen (Mass.) 20; Id., 103 Mass. 188, 4 Am. Rep. 524; Hopkins v. Stefan, 77 Wis. 45, 45 N. W. 676; Flynn v. Columbus Club, 21 R. I. 534, 45 Atl. 551; Bollin v. Hooper, 86 Mich. 287, 86 N. W. 795. The delivery must be accompanied by circumstances showing new contract. As-pell v. Hosbein, 98 Mich. 117, 57 N. W. 27. Defendant, who was indebted to plaintiff, agreed on Sunday to furnish a laborer on Monday to help plaintiffs son thresh, on plaintiff's account, which he did, and the son paid plaintiff a sum, which the latter placed to defendant's credit. Held, that the transaction on Monday did not show the elements of a contract without relying on the Sunday transaction, and hence was not sufficient to take the account out of the statute of limitations. Pillen v. Erickson, 125 Mich. 68, 83 N. W. 1023. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 15; Cent. Dig. § 46.

70 HANDY v. ST. PAUL GLOBE PUB. CO., 41 Minn. 188, 42 N. W. 872, 4 L. R. A. 466, 16 Am. St. Rep. 695, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 227. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 15; Cent. Dig. § 1,6.

71 Benedict v. Batchelder, 24 Mich. 425, 9 Am. Rep. 130. See "Sunday," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 15; Cent. Dig. § 1,6.

Four requisites are necessary to constitute an usurious transaction: (1) A loan or forbearance of money; (2) An understanding that the money lent is to be returned; (3) The payment of, or agreement to pay, a greater rate of interest than is allowed by law; (4) A corrupt intent to take more than the legal rate for theuse of the sum loaned.72