(o) The great case on the vanity of post-obit bonds, is that of Chesterfield v. Janssen, 1 Atk. 301, 2 Ves. Sen. 125, 1 Wilson, 286. The defendant paid Mr. Spencer, testator of the plaintiffs, £5,000, and took from him a bond for £20.000 conditioned for the payment of £10,000 to the defendant at or within some short time after the death of the Duchess of Marlborough, incase Mr Spencer survived her, but not otherwise. In six years the duchess died, and shortly after her death Mr. Spencer renewed the bond of £20,000. to the defendant, with a condition for the payment of the £10,000 on the next April, -gave the defendant a warrant of attorney to confess judgment against him, and about a year after this paid £2,000 on the new bond. Two years after the Duchess of Marlborough's death, Mr. Spencer died, and his executors brought this bill to be relieved against the bond to the defendant, as unreasonable and usurious, being independent of any other contingency than that of a grandson of thirty years of age surviving a grandmother of eighty, so that by reason of the great age and infirmity of the duchess, and her consequent approaching death, the requiring £10,000 for the forbearance of £5,000, was more than legal interest. The cases upon the subject of loans, upon contingencies, post-obits, etc, down to the time of this case, were collected and cited by the able counsel employed , and Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, Sir John Strange, M. R., and Mr. Justice Burnett, decided, that the loan to Mr. Spencer being upon a contingency, whereby the principal was bond fide hazarded, was not usurious; and although they would have relieved against the bargain as unconscionable, had it not been confirmed, they held that the execution of the new bond, by Mr. Spencer, and a part payment upon it, confirmed and ratified the agreement, so that they could not relieve. it will be noticed that in this case there was a possibility, in case Mr. Spencer should die before the duchess, that no part of the money lent would be repaid; and therefore this case does not go the extent of deciding that where there is a contract to pay money, at all events, upon the death of a party, such contract is good by reason of the uncertainty of the amount that will eventually be received But in Batty v. Lloyd, 1 Veru. 141, the defendant had agreed with the plaintiff, who had an estate fall to her, after the death of two old women, to give her £359, in consideration of receiving £700 at the death of the two women, which money the plaintiff was to secure by a mortgage of her reversionary estate. Both the women died within two years afterwards; and the plaintiff being sorry for her bargain, brought this bill to be relieved. Lord Keeper North said: " I do not see anything ill in this bargain. I think the price was of full value, though it happened to prove well. Suppose these women had lived twenty years afterwards, could Lloyd have been relieved by any bill here ? I do not believe you can show me any such precedent. What is mentioned of the plaintiff's necessities, is, as in all other cases.-one that is necessitous must sell cheaper than those who are not. If I had a mind to buy of a rich man a piece of ground that lav near mine, for my convenience, he would ask me almost twice the value; so where people are constrained to sell, they must look not to have the fullest price; as in some cases that I have knowu when a young lady that has had £10,000 portion, payable after the death of an old man, or the' like, and she, in the mean time, becomes marriageable, this portion has been sold for £6,000, present money, and thought a good bargain, too. It is the common case; pay me double interest during my life, and you shall have the principal after my decease." In Lamego v. Gould, 2 Burr. 715, defendant gave plaintiff this writing, receiving therefor two guineas: "Memorandum. In consideration of two guineas, received of Aaron Lamego, Esq., etc, I promise to pay him twenty guineas, upon the decease of my present wife, Anne Gould." The question was, whether it was usurious, the woman being at the time seventy years of age. The court held it no usurious loan, but only a wager. Matthews v. Lewis, 1 Anstr. 7, was a case in which Lewis, upon a loan of £1,600, gave post-obits for £3,200, payable on the death of either Lewis's mother or grandmother, from whom he was entitled to large property, and his grandmother being eighty-seven years of age. The court said: "This is nothing like usury. It is a catching bargain, an extortioning post-obit, but no usury."