Even though an agent is acting for the lender, the latter is not affected by usury, taken or contracted for without his knowledge or authority, by the agent.90 On the other hand, where the principal authorizes, ratifies, or knowingly takes the benefit of an exaction of his agent, which makes the charge for the use of money exceed the legal rate of interest, the transaction is usurious.91 And where the principal, as a reasonable man must have known that his agent would make an illegal exaction he is held in effect to have authorized it. Thus where the principal expressly or impliedly authorizes his agent to get his compensation from the borrower for making a loan at the highest legal rate, and the agent does so the transaction is usurious; 92 and clearly one who in reality advances money, cannot by making the loan in the name of one who acts as a mere dummy, avoid the imputation of usury where he exacts a bonus or commission which with the interest charged as such amounts to more than the legal percentage of the loan.92a

449; Eaton v. Bell, 5 B. A Ald. 34; Eslava v. Lepretre, 21 Ala. 504, 530, 56 Am. Dec. 266; Timberlake v. First Nat. Bank, 43 Fed. 231; First Nat. Bank of Helena v. Waddel, 74 Ark. 241, 85 S. W. 417; Ellard v. Scottish-American Mtge. Co., 07 Ga. 329, 22 S. E. 893; Telford v. Garrels, 132 111. 550, 24 N. E. 573; Quimby v. Cook, 10 Allen, 32; Gay v. Berkey, 137 Mich. 658, 100 N. W. 920; Gunn v. Head, 21 Mo. 432; Sanford v. Lundquist, 80 Neb. 414, 118 N. W. 129, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 633; Young v. Hill, 67 N. Y. 162, 23 Am. Rep. 99; Taylor v. Hie-stand, 46 Ohio St. 345, 20 N. E. 345; Craig v. McCulloch, 20 W. Va. 148. Cf. Spain v. Talcott, 165 N. Y. App. D. 815, 152 N. Y. S. 611.

90 Call v. Palmer, 116 U. S. 98, 6 Sup. Ct. 301, 29 L. Ed. 559, affirming 7 Fed. 737; Pearson v;. Bailey, 23 Ala. 537; Sherwood v. Swift, 64 Ark. 662, 43 S. W. 507; Wacasie v. Radford, 142 Ga. 113, 82 S. E. 442; Hoyt v. Paw-tucket Inst, for Sav., 110 111. 390; Chicago Fire Proofing Co. v. Park Nat. Bank, 145 111. 481, 32 N. E. 534; Richards v. Purdy, 90 Iowa, 502, 58 N. W. 886, 48 Am. St. Rep. 458; Lusk v. Smith, 71 Kans. 550, 81 Pac. 173; Commonwealth Title Ins. & T. Co. v. Dakko, 89 Minn. 386,94 N. W. 1088; Lane v. Washington L. Ins. Co., 46 N. J. Eq. 316, 19 Atl. 618; Brown v. Jones, 89 N. Y. Misc. 538, 546, 152

N. Y. 8. 571; Flanagan v. Shaw, 174 N. Y. 530, 66 N. E. 1108, affg. without opinion 74 N. Y. App. Div. 508, 77 N. Y. S. 1070; Barger v. Taylor, 30 Or. 228, 42 Pac. 615, 47 Pac. 618; Williams v. Bryan, 68 Tex. 593, 5 S. W. 401; Brown v. Johnson, 43 Utah, 1,134 Pac. 590, Ann. Cas. 1916 C. 321; Franxen v. Hammond, 136 Wis. 239, 116 N. W. 169, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 399,128 Am. St. Rep. 1079.

91 Dryfus v. Burnes, 53 Fed. 410 (Ark.); In re Kellogg, 113 Fed. 120, affd. 121 Fed. 333, 57 C. C. A. 547; Banks v. Flint, 54 Ark. 40, 14 S. W. 769, 16 S. W. 477, 10 L. R. A. 459; Vahlberg v. Keaton, 51 Ark. 534, 11 8. W. 878, 4 L. R. A. 462, 14 Am. St. Rep. 73; Richards v. Bippus, 18 D. C. App. Cas. 293; McCall v. Herring, 116 Ga. 235,42 S. E. 468; Meers v. Stevens, 106 111. 549; Manchester Nat. Bank v. Herndon, 181 Ky. 117, 203 S. W. 1055; Robinson v. Blaker, 85 Minn. 242, 88 N. W. 845,89 Am. St. Rep. 541; Knoup v. Carver, 74 N. J. Eq. 449, 70 Atl. 660; Bliven v. Lydecker, 130 N. Y. 102, 28 N. E. 625; Schwara v. Sweitzer, 202 N. Y. 8, 94 N. E. 1090; Bean v. Rumrill (Okl.), 172 Pac. 452; American Mtge. Co. v. Woodward, 83 S. C. 521, 65 S. E. 739; Fransen v. Hammond, 136 Wis. 239, 116 N. W. 169, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 399, 128 Am. St. Rep. 1079, and see cases cited in the preceding note.