(e) Doe d. Metcalfe v. Brown, 1 Holt, N. P. 295; Mastermann v. Cowrie, 3 Camp. 488: Carstairs v Stein, 4 M. & S. 192; Smith v. Brash, 8 Johns. 84; Thomas v. Catheral, 5 Gill & J. 23; Tyson v. Rickard, 3 Harris & J. 109; Stevens v. Davis. 3 Met. 211; Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. 76, 77

(f) In Parker v. Ramsbottom, 5 Dowl. & R. 138, 3 B. & C. 257, B and C being indebted to the plaintiff for £15,000, in stock previously advanced, it was agreed between the parties that B & C should be released from replacing the stock, and that instead thereof they should account for it in money, at the value of £I0,000, paying 5 per cent. interest thereon until the principal and all interest should be repaid. At the date of this agreement the market value of the stock was only £8,400. The plaintiff claimed, upon the issue in this case, to prove, under a commission of bankruptcy against B and C, the amount of his claim under this agreement. Abbott, C. J., said: "It appears to me that the agreement is clearly void for usury, because it secures to the plaintiff the sum of £10,000 as the value of the stock then remaining to be replaced, though the real value of that stock was then only £8,400." Bayley, J., said: "I entertain no doubt that the agreement was usurious, and consequently void. The statute evidently applies to loans of goods, or anything that can be called money's worth, as well as loans of money itself. In this case the original bargain was for the return of a loan of stock, which was a perfectly legal bargain; that stock, when first sold out, produced £10,000, but when the second bargain was made it was worth only £8,400, therefore, at that time the plaintiff was lending a stock worth £8,400 only, and stipulating to be repaid by £10,000, with legal interest on that larger ing be loaned, with an agreement to replace the stock on a certain day, and to pay such interest as the stock would have earned in the mean time, it is not usurious, (g)

1 Where a note was expressed to be "payable in three months from date with interest," and at maturity usurious interest was demanded and paid as " due upon the notes," and thereafter interest was demanded and paid quarterly at the same rate as "due on the notes," it was held that the dealings of the parties showed an original agreement to make a usurious contract. Smith v. Hathorn, 88 N. Y 211. - K.

2 A note executed to secure a loan of gold at a higher rate of premium than the market value of the gold was held, as a matter of law, to be usurious. Austin v. Walker, 45 la. 527. - K.

So, one may lend stock to be replaced; (h) or he may lend the price which it is sold for; or he may give the borrower the option, either to replace the stock, or repay the money with inter* est; * but if he reserves this option to himself, it is held to be usurious, (i) The lender may lend stock, and reserve, sum. That was certainly usurious." In Astor v. Price, 19 Mart. (La.) 408, which was an action on certain bills of exchange, the defence was usury. The consideration for the bills was a loan, purporting to be $64,000, for which the plaintiff charged interest, bat he disbursed only S8,850 in cash, and the remainder of the loan was United States bank stock, at the rate of $102 3/5 per share, when the market value at that time was only $104 1/2 or thereabouts. The court held the transaction usurious and the bills void.

(g) Tate p. Wellings, 3 T. -R. 531. Here the defendant applied to the plaintiff's testator to borrow money; the testator agreed to let him have it, but told him that he should expect the same interest which he received in the short annuities, namely, 8 1/2 per cent., and which, being assented to, it was agreed that the money should be raised by a sale of short annuities, to the amount of £900, which the defendant was to replace, in the same stock, by the 1st of September, 1785; but if it were not replaced by that time, he was then to repay that sum on the 1st of January, 1786, and in the mean time to pay such interest as the stock would have produced. The jury having found that the transaction was an honest loan of stock, the court refused to disturb the verdict. Ash hurst, J., said: "The question is, whether this transaction was merely colorable, and intended as a loan of money, upon which usurious interest was to be taken, or a loan of stock. It appeared from the evidence, that, in substance, this was a loan of stock. The agreement was, that the defendant should have the use of the money, which was the produce of the stock, paying the same interest which the stock would have produced, with liberty to replace the stock on a certain day, till which time the lender was to run the risk of the fall of the stocks; but he stipulated that, if it were not replaced by that time, he would not run that risk any longer, but would be repaid the sum advanced, at all events. And from this contract he derived no advantage, for he was only to receive in the mean time the same interest which the stock would have produced. Now, though this might have been used as a color for usury, it was a question for the consideration of the jury, and they have negatived it."

(h) Forrest p. Elwes, 4 Ves. 492. In this case, £8,000 old South.Sea annuities were loaned, the value at the time being £7,170, and a bond given by the borrower to replace the stock in six months, and in the mean time to pay lawful interest on £7,170. It was contended, that the bond was, upon the face of it, a usurious contract; but the point was afterwards given up, and the Master of the Rolls decreed the bond good.

(i) Barnard v. Young, 17 Ves. 44. In this case, £8,500 East India stock was transferred as security for the performance of an agreement that £16,096 of the three per cents, which was the amount of three per cents that £10.000 would have purchased at the date when a debt for £10,000 had become due from the plain-tiffs to the defendant, should be transferred to the defendant on the 30th of the next September, or that the debt of £10,000 should be paid, at the defendant's option, and that in either case five per cent. interest on the £10,000 should be paid to the defendant. Upon a bill filed to have the assignment of the East India stock produced, Sir William Grant, M. R., said, that the contract was usurious, as it reserved the capital, with legal interest upon it, and likewise a contingent advantage, without putting either capital or interest in any kind of risk. The lender was to have, at his election, his principal and interest, or to have a given quantity of stock transferred to him. The principal never was at any hazard, as he was at all events sure of having that with legal interest, and had the chance of an advantage if the stock rose. It was usurious to stipulate for that chance, and the contract was therefore, in fact, a usurious contract. In White v. Wright, 3 B. & C. 273, White sold out £400 stock, in the three per cent. consolidated bank annuities, for £223, which he loaned to the defendant, who executed an agreement that after one by way of interest, the dividends which would be paid on it, whatever they may be, provided he agrees at the time of the loan to take them; (j) for they may be more or less than the interest; but he cannot contract that he shall have them, if more than the interest, and, if less, so much more as shall make the whole amount received equal to legal interest.