Ignorance of the law is generally no excuse, and where a transaction unmistakably a loan is made for a rate of interest exceeding that permitted by the law, the transaction is necessarily usurious.98 In some jurisdictions, however, it seems that a wilful purpose to transgress the law is essential;94 and a number of decisions sustain the conclusion that if by a mistake of fact as to the amount of interest charged, due to miscalculation or other cause, the lender innocently bargains for more than the legal rate, the transaction is not usurious.95 In New York at least such a mistake of fact on the part of the borrower prevents the transaction from being usurious though the lender had a corrupt purpose, and what was actually bargained for exceeds what the law permits.*1 But generally it is held that so far as intent is important, it is only that of the lender which is determinative.97 Intent is chiefly important as characterizing transactions not in the form of loans. The law does not permit parties to evade usury statutes by giving the form of a sale or exchange or bailment to what is really intended as a loan of money, and the validity of such transactions depends on whether the parties were using an apparently legal form as a mere device, or in good faith intended to make such a bargain in reality as they did in appearance.98

92 Fowler v. Equitable Trust Co., 141 U. S. 384, 12 Sup. Ct. 1, 35 L. Ed. 786; Vahlberg v. Keaton, 51 Ark. 534, 545, 11 S. W. 878, 4 L. R. A. 462, 14 Am. St. Rep. 73; Payne v. Henderson, 106 Ky. 135, 50 S. W. 34, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1739; Hall v. Maudlin, 58 Minn. 137,50 N. W. 085, 49 Am. St. Rep. 492; Carpenter v. Lamphere, 70 Minn. 542, 73 N. W. 514; Kaufman v. Schwartz, 183 N. Y. App. D. 510, 170 N. Y. S. 318. In Nebraska the court lays down the rule broadly: "that where an agent of the lender exacts for the use of money a bonus or commission from the borrower in addition to the highest lawful rate of interest, the transaction is usurious." Hare v. Winterer, 64 Neb. 551, 90 N. W. 544. See also Ridgeway v. Davenport, 37 Wash. 134, 79 Pac. 606.

92a Dalton v. Weber, 203 Mich. 455, 160 N. W. 946.

93 Brown v. Grundy, 111 Fed. 15; Blaisdell v. Steinfeld, 15 Ariz. 155, 186, 137 Pac. 555; German Bank v. De Shon, 41 Ark. 331; Drury v. Wolfe, 34 11I. App. 23, affd. 134 11I. 294,25 N. E. 626; Sylvester v. Swan, 5 Allen, 134, 81

Am. Dec. 734; Vandervelde v. Wilson, 176 Mich. 185, 188, 142 N. W. 1069; Hagan v. Barnes, 92 Minn. 128, 99 N. W. 415; Hebron Bank v. Gambrell (Miss.), 77 So. 148; Bank of Willow Springs v. Utterman (Mo. App.), 184 S. W. 1171, 1172; Fiedler v. Darrin, 50 N. Y. 437; MacRackan v. Bank of Columbus, 164 N. C. 24, 80 S. E. 184, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1043; Gold Stabeck Loan & C. Co. v. Kinney, 33 N. Dak. 495, 157 N. W. 482; Craig v. Pleiss, 26 Pa. St. 271; Carolina Savings Bank v. Parrott, 30 S. C. 61, 8 S. E. 199; Washington Fire Ins. Co. v. Maple Valley Lumber Co., 77 Wash. 686, 138 Pac. 553.

94Scheuer v. New York Life Ins. Co. (Ala.), 82 So. 157; Anderson v. Creamery Package Co., 8 Ida. 200, 67 Pac. 493, 56 L. R. A. 554, 101 Am. St. Rep. 188; Washington, etc., Investment Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Or. 319, 63 Pac. 489, 58 L. R. A. 816, 84 Am. St. Rep. 793. See also Patterson v. Wy-man (Minn.), 170 N. W. 928; Rosen-stein v. Fox, 150 N. Y. 354, 44 N. E. 1027; Hartley v. Eagle Ins. Co., 222 N. Y. 178, 118 N. E. 622.