The provision in a pecuniary obligation that on default of the debtor in payment of either principal or interest the entire indebtedness including interest for the full term, or a greater sum than legal interest to the time of default, shall thereupon become immediately payable, is not usurious, though recovery of any excess over legal interest is generally disallowed as penal.84 Similarly, a provision that on default by the maker

S. E. 621, 122 Am. St. Rep. 562; Bank of Burlington v. Durkee, 1 Vt. 399. But see contra - Utica Bonk v. Smalley, 2 Cow. 770, 14 Am. Dec. 526; Bank of Utica v. Wagar, 8 Cow. 398. In Neal v. Brockhan, 87 Ga. 130, 13 S. E. 283, a reservation as interest of one-twelfth of the legal annual rate for the month of February was held not usurious.

79 Myer v. Muscatine, 1 Wall. 384, 17 L. Ed. 564; Vara v. White, 68 Fla. 329, 67 So. 142; Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 111. 490, 83 Am. Dec. 240; Hawley v. Howell, 60 Iowa, 79, 14 N. W. 199; Radford v. Southern Mutual life Ins. Co., 12 Bush, 434; Monnett v. Sturges, 25 Ohio St. 384; Taylor v. Hiestand, 46 Ohio St. 345, 20 N. E. 345.

80 Mowry v. Bishop, 5 Paige, 96.

81 Hatch v. Douglas, 48 Conn. 116, 40 Am. Rep. 154; Neal v. Brockhan, 87 Ga. 130, 13 S. E. 283; Goodale v. Wallace, 19 S. Dak. 405, 103 N. W. 651, 117 Am. St. Rep. 962.

82 Crowell v. Jones, 167 N. G. 386, 83S.E.551.

83See Hatch v. Douglas, 48 Conn. 116, 40 Am. Rep. 154. In Brown v. Johnson, 43 Utah, 1, 134 Pac. 590, Ann. Gas. 1916 G. 321, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1157, under a statute permitting any rate of interest not exceeding 12 per cent per annum, the discount of a note for three months by deducting 3 per cent, was held not usurious.

84 Wells v. Girling, 4 Moo. C. PL 78; Georgia Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Mercantile Trust, etc., Co., 94 Ga. 306, 21 S. E. 701, 47 Am. St. 153, 32 L. R. A 208; Taylor v. Buaard, 114 Mo. App. 622, 90 S. W. 126; Moore v. Cameron, 93 N. C. 51; Garland v. Union Trust Co. (Okla.), 165 Pac. 197; Law Guarantee, etc., Soc. v. Hogue, 37 Or. 544, 62 Pac. 380, 63 Pac. 690; Goodale v. Wallace, 19 S. Dak. 405, 103 N. W. 651, 117 Am. Rep. 962, 9 Ann. Gas. 545; Stuart v. Tenison Bros. Saddlery an obligation shall thereafter bear a rate of interest higher than the legal rate, though it may be objectionable as penal if the rate is excessive, is not usurious.85 The principle applicable to these cases has been thus stated: "Wherever the debtor by the terms of the contract can avoid the payment of the larger by the payment of the smaller sum at an earlier date, the contract is not usurious but additional, and the larger sum becomes a mere penalty." 86 The same principle should render valid a stipulation in the original contract of the borrower for compounding interest if not paid when due though the rate reserved was the full legal rate, and such is the more general rule; 87 but in many States the provision is held, if not usurious, at least penal and unenforceable.88 After lawful interest has once become due, there seems no doubt of the validity of a contract express or implied from custom to pay interest thereafter upon the interest already matured.89

Co., 21 Tex. Civ. App. 530, 53 S. W. 83; Dugan v. Lewis, 79 Tex. 246, 14 S. W. 1024, 12 L. it A. 93, 23 Am. St. Rep. 332; Cissna Loan Go. v. Gawley, 87 Wash. 438, 151 Pac. 702, L. R A. 1016 B. 807, Ann. Gas. 1917 D. 722. See also Deming Investment Co. v. Reed (Okla.), 179 Pac. 35, and see supra, Sec.787. But see contra Miller v. Furgerson, 20 Ky. L. Rep., 801, 47 S. W. 1081.

85 Lang v. Stone, 9 Hare, 542; Union Mortgage, etc., Co. v. Hagood, 97 Fed. 360; Carney v. Matthewson, 86 Ark. 25, 109 S. W. 1024; Walker v. Abt, 83 11I. 226; Conrad v. Gibbon, 29 la. 120; Taylor v. Buzard, 114 Mo. App. 622, 90 S. W. 126; Union Estates Co. v. Ad-low Const. Co., 221 N. Y. 183, 116 N. E. 084; Green v. Brown, 22 N. Y. Misc. . 279, 49 N. Y. S. 163; Ward's Adm'r v. Cornett, 91 Va. 676, 22 S. E. 494, 49 L. R. A. 550; Blake v. Yount, 42 Wash. 101, 84 Pac. 625, 114 Am. St. Rep. 106, 7 Ann. Cas. 487. See also Cissna Loan Co. v. Gawley, 87 Wash. 438, 151 Pac. 792, Ann. Cas. 1917 D. 722, L. R. A. 1916 B. 807. But see Yndart v. Den, 116 Cal. 533, 48 Pac. 618, 58 Am. St. Rep. 200.

86 Blake v. Yount, 42 Wash. 101, 84 Pac. 625,114 Am. St. Rep. 106, 7 Ann. Cas. 487.

87 Carney v. Matthewson, 86 Ark. 25, 109 S. W. 1034; Graham v. Fitte, 53 Fla. 1046, 43 So. 512; Union Sayings Bank, etc., Co. v. Dottenheim, 107 Ga. 606, 614, 34 S. E. 217; Palm v. Fancher, 93 Miss. 785, 48 So. 818, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 295; Merchants', etc., Bank v. Caston, 97 Miss. 309, 52 So. 633; Western Storage, etc., Co. v. Glasner, 169 Mo. 38, 68 S. W. 917; Bledsoe v. Nixon, 69 N. C. 89, 12 Am. Rep. 642; Covington v. Fisher, 22 Old. 207, 97 Pac. 615; Newton v. Woodley, 55 S. C. 132, 32 S. E. 531, 33 S. E. 1; Hale 0. Hale, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 233, 78 Am. Dec. 490; Roane v. Ross, 84 Tex. 46, 19 S. W. 339; Crider v. San Antonio Real Estate Bldg., etc., Assoc., 89 Tex. 597, 35 S. W. 1047. See also Yndart v. Den, 116 Cal. 533, 48 Pac. 618, 58 Am. St. Rep. 200. 88 See supra, Sec. 1417. 89Ossulston v. Yarmouth, 2 Salk.