The statute of Anne8 applied only to a loan or forbearance of money, and in the construction of this statute it was held that where property was sold, even though the contract provided in terms for the payment of a fixed price payable in the future with interest at a greater rate than that allowed by the statute, the transaction was, nevertheless, not usurious since everything that the buyer promised must be deemed consideration for the sale of property, not interest on a loan or forbearance of money.9 In the United States similar statutes have been similarly construed, so that where property is sold the parties may agree that the price, if paid after a certain time, shall be a sum greater by more than legal interest than the price payable at an earlier day;10 and though the difference between an agreed price for cash and that for credit is in terms stated in the form of interest at greater than the legal rate, the contract is not usurious. 11 In a few States, however, statutes drawn in broader terms than the English model, have been held to render such transactions illegal.12 and the courts of some other states, though not resting their conclusion upon any difference of statutory wording, refuse to go to the full extent of the English precedents in upholding such bargains.13
7 Clemens v. Crane, 234 111 215, 229, 84 N. E. 884.
8 12 Anne, c. 16.
9 Beete v. Bidgood, 7 B. & C. 453.
10 Primley v. Shirk, 60 111. App. 312, 163 111. 389, 45 N. E. 247; Tousey v. Robinson, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 663; Huber Mfg. Co. v. Ellis, 199 Mo. App. 96, 201 S. W. 931; West v. Belches, 5 Munf. 187.
11 Davidson v. David, 59 Fla. 476, 52 So. 139, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 102; Cutler v. Wright, 22 N. Y. 472; First Nat. Bank v. Mann, 94 Tenn. 17, 27 8. W. 1015, 27 L. R A. 565; Graeme v. Adams, 23 Gratt. 225, 14 Am. St. Rep. 130; Reger v. O'Neal, 33 W. Va.
159,10 S. E. 375, 6 L. R A. 427. See also Dykes v. Bottoms, 101 Ala. 390, 13 So. 582; Rushing v. Woisham, 102 Ga. 825, 30 S. E. 541; Gilmore v. Ferguson, 28 la. 220; but eeeHnfra, Sec. 1687.
12 Crawford v. Johnson, 11 Ind. 258; Newkirk v. Burson, 21 Ind. 129; Rosen v. Rosen, 159 Mich. 72,123 N. W. 559, 134 Am. St. Rep. 712; Parchman v. McKinney, 20 Miss. 631; Thompson v. Nesbit, 2 Rich. L. 73.
13 In Hartranft v. Uhlinger, 115 Pa. 270, 8 Atl. 244, it was held that if the price is payable whenever the buyer sees fit, with interest at more than the legal rate, the transaction is usurious. See also Scofield v. McNaught, 52