As usury by its definition requires the loan or forbearance of money, the loan of chattels for a compensation measured in chattels of a similar kind is not usurious though the percentage of compensation is greater than the legal rate of interest.45 The same is true of loans of stock or other securities.46 Even bank notes or other currency which is not legal tender, if depreciated in value, may be dealt with in the same manner. In return for them the borrower may promise legal tender with the highest rate of interest47 or may agree to take them at any-agreed discount; 47a and the converse principle is equally true. A loan of money, for the use of which the borrower promises property or services is not usurious,48 at least unless so clearly excessive in value as to indicate a wrongful intent*49 So a payment of specie to be repaid later in depreciated currency is not invalid though the amount of currency to be repaid exceeds by more than the legal rate of interest the specie loaned.50 It is obvious, however, that transactions such as those under consideration may easily be used to cover an intent to make a usurious loan, and if such an intent exists, the transaction is illegal. Therefore, where property transferred is given a fixed money value by the parties, a return of similar •property greater in amount by more than the legal percentage is usurious;51 and if the agreement requires the return not of a specified quantity of chattels but of such a quantity of chattels as shall equal in value those lent with the addition of other chattels of a value greater than the permissible interest, the transaction will be usurious.52 Still more clearly where a loan is made in depreciated currency the intent of the parties may render the transaction usurious, and in some States it has been held that, in any event, if the rate of compensation exceeds the permissible rate of interest, taking the depreciated currency at its market value at the time of the agreement, the transaction is usurious.53
43 Sherman v. Blackman, 24 III. 345; Dickerman v. Day, 31 Iowa, 444, 7 Am. Rep. 156; Holmes v. State Bank, 53 Minn. 350, 55 N. W. 555; Gaul v. Willis, 26 Pa. St. 259; Law's Ex'rs v. Sutherland, 5 Gratt. 357.
44 Wallace v. Branch Bank, 1 Ala. 565; Carlisle v. Hill, 16 Ala. 308; Hen-drie v. Berkowitz, 37 Cal. 113, 09 Am. Dec. 251; Salmon Falls Bank v. Ley-ser, 116 Mo. 51, 22 S. W. 504; Overton v. Hardin, 6 Coldw. 376; Whit-worth v. Adams, 5 Rand. 333, 411.
45 Morrison v. McKinnon, 12 Fla. 552; Bull v. Rice, 5 N. Y. 315.
46 Maddock v. Rumball, 8 East, 304; Klein v. Title Guaranty, etc., Co., 166 Fed. 365, 178 Fed. 689, 102 C. C. A. 189, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 620; Dry Dock Bank v. American L. Ins. Co., 3 N. Y. 344; Marshall v. Rice, 85 Tenn. 502, 3 S. W. 177.