Where an obligation originally given for a loan is tainted with usury subsequent renewals thereof will be open to the same defence; 24 and it is immaterial that the renewal obligation is made by a new obligor, if the original obligor still remains bound,25 or if the new obligor was a party to the original usurious obligation.26 Nor is it material that the renewal is made to a third person if he takes with knowledge of the usurious character of the original indebtedness,27 or without value; 28 but an assignee for value of a usurious claim who in ignorance of the usury takes a new promise or new security from the debtor may enforce it, though he could not have enforced the original claim,29 and a stranger to a usurious obligation who assumes payment of it in good faith as part of the consideration for the purchase of property or other lawful transaction cannot set up the defence of usury..30 If a renewal note is given for the amount of the debt with no more than legal interest, the taint of usury is said to be purged and the obligation may be enforced.31 Where, as under the early English statutes, usury makes the original debt void or unenforceable, such a result seems to involve accepting the doctrine of moral consideration; 32 but under modern statutes there is less difficulty in reaching the conclusion.

Rep. 684, 29 S. W. 435; Davis v. Cunningham, 32 N. C. 156. 22 Brown v. Fletcher, 253 Fed. 15, 165 C. C. A. 35.

23 Falls v. United States Savings, etc., Co., 97 Ala. 417, 13 So. 25, 24 L. R. A. 174, 38 Am. St. Rep. 194; Clemens v. Crane, 234 111. 215, 84 N. E. 884; Hartley v. Eagle Ins. Co., 222 N. Y. 178, 118 N. E. 622; Meroney v, Atlanta Bldg. & Loan Assn., 116 N. C. 882, 21 S. E. 924, 47 Am. St. Rep. 841; Stirling v. Gogebic Lumber Co., 165 Mich. 498, 131 N. W. 109, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1106; Cotton n. Cooper (Tex. Civ. App.), 209 S. W. 135; Hudmon v. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.), 210 S. W. 262; and see cases in this section passim.

24 Tate v. Wellings, 3 T. R. 531; Moncure v. Dermott, 13 Pet. 345, 10 L. Ed. 193; Nicrosi v. Walker, 139 Ala. 369, 37 So. 97; Lewis v. Hickman (Ala.), 77 So. 46; Lockwood v. Muhl-berg, 124 Ga. 660, 53 S. E. 92; Cobe v. Guyer, 237 111. 568, 86 N. E. 1088; Smith v. Coopers, 9 Iowa, 376; Stanton v. Demerritt, 122 Mass. 495; Johnson v. Grayson, 230 Mo. 380, 130 S. W. 673; Gund v. Ballard, 73 Neb. 547, 103 N. W. 309; Sheldon v. Haxont, 91 N. Y. 124; Laux v. Gildersleeve,. 23

N. Y. App. Div. 352, 48 N. Y. S. 301; Person v. Mattson, 33 N. Dak. 49, 156 N. W. 780, Ann. Cas. 1918 A. 747; Reap v. Battle, 155 Pa. St. 265, 26 Atl. 439; First Nat. Bank v. McCarthy, 18 S. Dak. 218, 100 N. W. 14; Cross v. Mann, 53 Vt. 501. See also Bean v. Rumrill (Okl.), 172 Pac. 452.

25 Williams v. Eagle Bank, 172 Ky. 541, 189 S. W. 883; Taulbee v. Hargis, 173 Ky. 433, 191 S. W. 320, Ann. Cas. 1918 A. 762; Richardson v. Foster, 100 Wash. 57, 170 Pac. 321.

26 Machinists Bank v. Krum, 15 la. 49; Bolen v. Wright, 89 Neb. 116, 131 N. W. 185; Beals v. Lewis, 43 Ohio St. 220, 1 N. E. 641. In these cases a partner originally liable on a usurious note of the partnership assumed the debt and gave his individual note for it.

27 Compton v. Collins, 197 Ala. 642, 73 So. 334; Shirley v. Stephenson, 104 Ky. 518, 47 S. W. 581. Cf. Stephenson v. Shirley (Ky), 60 S. W. 387.

28 E. g. where the new obligee acquired his right by inheritance. Taulbee v. Hargis, 173 Ky. 433, 191 S. W. 320, Ann. Cas. 1918 A. 762; Van Ausdal v. Potterf, 41 Ohio St. 677.