It should be remarked, that if a foreign contract provides for interest which is lawful where the contract is made, it will not be lawful in itself, was held, upon the authority of Roberts v. Trenayne, to be vitiated by the other bond for the payment of illegal interest. To the same effect are Motte v. Dorrell, 1 McCord, 350; Clark v. Badgley, 3 Halst. 233; Postlethwait v. Garrett, 3 T. B. Mon. 345; Fitch v. Hamlin, 1 Root, 110; Swartwout v. Payne, 19 Johns. 294: Gray v. Brown, 22 Ala 273.

(l) Merrills v. Law, 9 Cowen, 65; Ma-comber v. Dunham, 8 Wend. 550; Hammond v. Hopping, 13 Wend. 505; Willard v. Reeder, 2 McCord, 369; Lear v. Yar-nel, 3 A. K. Marsh. 419; Atwood v. Whittlesey, 2 Root, 37; contra, Butterfield v. Kidder, 8 Pick. 512.

(m) Ibid.; Warren v. Crabtree, 1 Greenl. 171.

declared void for usury in a State in which only a less interest is allowed by law. (n)1 And a foreign corporation may receive upon a contract to be performed in a State the interest there legal, although it is higher than its charter and the laws of its own State allow, (nn) If a contract made in one place is to be executed in another, the parties may agree that the interest to be paid shall be that of either place, (no) But if a usurious contract is made in a State in which it is wholly void, because of such usury, it cannot be recognized in another State in which the penalty is a forfeiture of a part only, and enforced there for all but this part (o) See chapter on the Law of Place, as to effect of different rules as to interest in the States where the contract is made and that where it is to be performed.

It would seem that there must be an intent to take usury, to constitute the offence. (oo)2 Hence the usual discount of a bank, * although it takes in fact something more than lawful interest, is not usury. (p)3 And there must be

(n) Harvey v. Arch bold, 3 B. & C. 626; Thompson v. Powles, 2 Simons, 211; De Wolf v. Johnson, 10 Wheat. 367; Chapman v. Robertson, 6 Paige, 627; Pratt v. Adams, 7 Paige, 615. See on this subject, ante, vol. ii. p. *584, n. (h); Nichols v. Cosset, 1 Root, 294; McQueen v. Barns, 1 Hawks, 476; M'Guire v. Warder, 1 Wash. (Va.) 368; Robb v. Halsey, 11 Smedes & M. 140. See also Gale v. Eastman, 7 Met. 14; Jacks v. Nichols, 1 Seld. 178; Davis v. Garr, 2 id. 134; Tar-pin p. Povall, 8 Leigh, 93.

(nn) Bank of Louisville v. Young, 37 Mo. 398.

(no) Bolton v. Street, 3 Cold. 31. See ante, vol. ii. p. * 584.

(o) Houghton v. Paige, 2 N. H. 42.

(oo) Doak v. Snapp, 1 Cold. 180; Fay v. Lovejoy, 20 Wis. 407.

(p) This point is abundantly settled, both by usage and decision. Savage, C. J., in Bank of Utica v. Wager, 2 Cowen, 712, 769, expressed the opinion that the privilege of discounting in this way was confined to banks and bankers, and said that this was the rule in England. But it has been held that there was no distinction on this point between banks or bankers and other persons, in New York Firemen's Insurance Co. v. Ely, 2 Cowen, 678; and same plaintiffs v. Sturges, id. 664; Parker v. Cousins, 2 Gratt. 372; McGill v. Ware, 4 Scam. 21; Cole v. Lockhart, 2 Cart. (Ind.) 631; Maine Bank v. Butts, 9 Mass. 54.

1 Interest, lawful where the contract is made and is to be enforced, is allowable, though exceeding that allowed at the place fixed for payment. Pancoast v. Travelers Ins. Co. 79 Ind. 172. The usurious Quality of a note made in one State and transmitted for discount to another must be determined by the usury laws of the latter State. Providence Bank v Frost, 14 Blatchford, 233. A., who resided in Illinois, having collected certain money of B., a resident of New York, sent to him as agreed, instead of the money, his notes, one of which was payable in New York, but all dated at his residence in Illinois, and at a rate of interest lawful there, but unlawful in New York; and it was held, in an action on the notes in the latter State, that their validity was to be determined by the law of Illinois. Sheldon v. Haxtun, 91 N. Y. 124. - K.

2 Siewert v. Hamel, 91 N. Y. 199. Where a lender requires, and a borrower assents to, the paymeut of a sum falsely represented by the former as a part of the expense of getting the money, the transaction does not constitute usury, as it fails to show a mutual agreement for that purpose. Morton v. Thurber, 85 N. Y. 550; Gug-genheimer p. Geiszler, 81 N. Y. 293. - K.

3 And a note on which interest is payable quarterly at the legal rate is not usurious. Mowry v. Shamway, 44 Conn. 493. The custom of stock-brokers to debit and credit interest monthly, computing interest on balances, does not necessarily involve usury, as the balances may be paid. Hatch v. Douglas, 48 Conn. 116. - K.

intent, so there must be act, as intent alone is not enough: an usurious lender not being subject to the penalties of usury, if in fact he takes only lawful interest, (pp)

Bills or notes promising to pay legal interest from a period anterior to their date, will not be presumed to be usurious, as they may be given subsequently to the transaction on which they are given, (pq)

It has been held in New York that the usury laws of that State do not apply to loans by national banks organized under the act of June 3, 1864. (pr)1