Whether payment of usurious interest or a promise to pay usurious interest is a consideration for a promise to extend the time for the payment of a debt, is a question upon which there is a general harmony of principle and diversity of result. The latter grows out of the diversity of statutes forbidding usury, and the corresponding difference in legal effect of usury under the different statutes. The same state often illustrates the variance in effect caused by change of statute. Thus in Indiana, under the act of 1845, payment of usury was a valuable consideration.1 Under a subsequent statute, imposing a fine for the payment of usury and providing that it could be recovered by the debtor, payment of usury was held to be no consideration.2 Under a still later statute, allowing recoupment for payment of usury, such payment was held to be a consideration.3 Under most statutes the actual payment of usury,4 as where it is paid in advance,5 and where the payment includes legal interest as well as usury,6 is a consideration. This rule is applied even if the party making such payment may recoup,7 since "the right to plead usury is the personal privilege of the debtor."8 If, however, the statute makes payment of usurious interest apply on the prin-

13Tousey v. Moore, 79 Mich. 564, 44 N. W. 958.

1 Royal v. Lindsay, 15 Kan. 445; Welch v. Kukuk, 128 Wis. 419, 107 N. W. 301.

2 Scott v. Fisher, 110 N. Car. 311, 28 Am. St. Rep. 688, 14 S. E. 799.

3Commercial Bank v. Wood, 56 Mo. App. 214.

4 Royal v. Lindsay, 15 Kan. 591.

5 Bugh v. Crum, 26 Ind. App. 465, 84 Am. St. Rep. 307, 59 N. E. 1076.

6 California. Smith v. Pearson, 52 Cal. 339.

Illinois. Prussing v. Lancaster,- 234 111. 462, 84 N. E. 1062.

Indiana. Williams v. Scott, 83 Ind. 405.

Kentucky. Young v. Bank, 102 Ky. 257, 43 S. W. 473.

Missouri. Nelson v. Brown, 140 Mo. 580, 62 Am. St. Rep. 755, 41 S. W. 960; American National Bank v. Love, 62 Mo. App. 378; Owen v. Bray, 80 Mo. App. 526.

Ohio. Gard v. Neff, 39 O. S. 607 (such payment is not conclusive evidence of contract).

Pennsylvania. In re Bishop, 195 Pa. St. 85, 45 Atl. 582.

Tennessee. Bank v. Walter, 104 Tenn. 11; 55 S. W. 301.

Texas. State National Bank v. Strat-ton-White Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 50 S. W. 631.

Washington. Binnian v. Jennings, 14 Wash. 677, 45 Pac. 302; Bank v. Jeffs, 15 Wash. 230, 46 Pac. 247.

West Virginia. Parsons v. Harrold, 46 W. Va. 122, 32 S. E. 1002.

Wisconsin. Hallock v. Yankey, 102 Wis. 41, 72 Am. St. Rep. 861, 78 N. W. 156; Welch v. Kukuk, 128 Wis. 419,107 N. W. 301.

7Dickerson v. Board of Commission-ers, 6 Ind. 128, 63 Am. Dec. 373; Lime Rock Bank v, Mallett, 34 Me. 547, 56 Am. Dec 673.

1 Harbert v. Dumont, 3 Ind. 346.

2 Shaw v. Benkard, 10 Ind. 227.

3 Lemmon v. Whitman, 75 Ind. 318, 39 Am. Rep. 150.

4 Georgia. Knight v. Hawkins, 93 Ga. 709, 20 S. E. 266.

Indiana. Lemmon v. Whitman, 75 Ind. 318, 39 Am. Rep. 150.

Illinoia. Wittmer v. Ellison, 72 111. 301.

Iowa. Kelly v. Gillespie, 12 la. 55, 79 Am. Dec. 516.

Missouri. Marks v. Bank, 8 Mo. 318; Wiley v. Hight, 39 Mo. 130; Stilwell v. Aaron, 69 Mo. 539, 33 Am. Rep. 517 [overruling Farmers', etc., Bank v. Harrison, 57 Mo. 506]; Wild v. Howe, 74 Mo. 551.

New York. Billington v. Wagoner, 33 N. Y. 31. (The party who exacts the usury can not plead the invalidity of the contract so as to avoid release of the surety.)

North Carolina. Hollingsworth v. Tomlinson, 108 N. Car. 245, 12 S. E. 989; Fleming v. Barden, 126 N. Car. 450, 78 Am. St. Rep. 671, 36 S. E. 17 [sub nomine, Fleming v. Borden, 53 L. R. A. 316; rehearing denied sub nomine, Fleming v. Borden, 127 N. Car. 214, 53 L. R. A. 326, 37 S. E. 219].

Ohio. Blazer v. Bundy, 15 O. S. 57; Osborn v. Low, 40 O. S. 347.

South Dakota. Niblack v. Champeny, 10 S. D. 165, 72 N. W. 402.

Texas. Mann v. Brown, 71 Tex. 241, 9 S. W. 111.

West Virginia. Parsons v. Harrold, 46 W. Va. 122, 32 S. E. 1002.

Wisconsin. Hamilton v. Prouty, 50 Wis. 592, 36 Am. Rep. 866, 7 N. W. 659.

5 Hollingsworth v. Tomlinson, 108 N. Car. 245, 12 S. E. 989; Bank v. Walter, 104 Tenn. 11, 55 S. W. 301 [overruling, Howell v. Sevier, 69 Tenn. (1 Lea) 360, 27 Am. Rep. 771]; Parson v. Harrold, 46 W. Va. 122, 32 S. E. 1002.

6Bank v. Walter, 104 Tenn. 11, 55 S. W. 301.

7 Lemmon v. Whitman, 75 Ind. 318, 39 Am. Rep. 150.

8"If the contract were absolutely void on account of the usurious taint, we might be forced, possibly, to a different conclusion. But it is only voidable, and that not at the option of the lender. The right of rescission and recoupment is personal to the debtor, his heirs, representatives or sureties. The creditor who has received the usury has no right to restore it or credit it on the debt and thereby release himself cipal, payment is no consideration.9 Payment of usurious interest, according to the terms of the original contract, is held not to be a consideration for an agreement to extend time of payment.10 A promise to pay usury stands on a different footing. In most jurisdictions such contract is unenforceable and is no consideration.11 A promise to extend payment on such consideration would, therefore, not release a surety.12 A promise to pay usurious interest is most clearly not a consideration when repudiated by the debtor.13 If, under the statute, such a promise has any validity, it is a valuable consideration.14 Thus when the statute made usury a forfeiture of all interest, a usurious promise was no consideration,15 but a change of statute making usury a forfeiture only of the excess above the legal rate makes a usurious promise a consideration.16 Some jurisdictions, however, invoke the theory that usury is a defense personal to the debtor, and hold that the creditor can not take advantage of the usury,17 and that accordingly a contract to extend the time of payment in consideration of a promise to pay usury releases a surety.11 If the usurious contract has any validity, as where the statute avoids the contract only to the extent from his engagement to give time, and especially after the stipulated time has gone by, on the ground that his agreement was without sufficient consideration." Lemmon v. Whitman, 75 Ind. 318, 39 Am. Rep. 150.

9 Polkinghorne v. Hendricks, 61 Miss. 366; Nightingale v. Meginnis, 34 N. J. L. 461; Calvert v. Good, 95 Pa. St. 65; Wilson v. Langford, 24 Tenn. (5 Humph.) 320; McKamy v. McNabb, 97 Tenn. 236, 36 S. W. 1091.

10 Hunt v. Postlewait, 28 la. 427; Jones v. Brown, 11 O. S. 601.

11 District of Columbia. Green v. Lake, 2 Mackey (D C.) 162.'

Kansas. Jenness v. Cutler, 12 Kan. 500.

Kentucky. Duncan v. Reed, 47 Ky. (8 B. Mon.) 382.

Maryland. Ives v. Bosley, 35 Md. 262, 6 Am. Rep. 411.

North Carolina. Bank v. Lineberger, 83 N. Car. 454, 35 Am. Rep. 582.

Pennsylvania. Hartman v. Danner, 74 Pa. St. 36.

South Carolina. Cornwell v. Holly, 5 Rich. (S. Car.) 47.

Wisconsin. Irvine v. Adams, 48 Wis. 468, 33 Am. Rep. 817, 4 N. W. 573.

12Galbraith v. Fullerton, 53 111. 126; Silmeyer v. Schaffer, 60 111. 479; Patton v. Shanklin, 53 Ky. (14 B. Mon.) 15; Leary v. Miller, 61 N. Y. 488; Meis-winkle v. Jung, 30 Wis. 361, 11 Am. Rep. 572.

13 Morgan v. Wickliffe (Ky.), 61 S. W. 1017 [denying rehearing (Ky.), 61 S.W. 13].

14 Grafton Bank v. Woodward, 5 N. H. 99, 20 Am. Dec. 566; Wood v. New-kirk, 15 O. S. 295.

15 Roberts v. Stewart, 31 Miss. 664.

16 Brown v. Prophit, 53 Miss, 649. 17Turrill v. Boynton, 23 Vt. 142;

Armistead v. Ward, 2 Patton & H. (Va.) 504; Hamilton v. Prouty, 50 Wis. 592, 36 Am. Rep. 866, 7 N. W. 659.

18 Kelly v. Gillespie, 12 la. 55, 79 Am. Dec. 516; Austin v. Chittenden, 33 Vt. 553; Moulton v. Posten, 52 Wis. 169, 8 N. W. 621.

of the excess above the legal rate,19 such promise is a valuable consideration.