It is entirely immaterial in what manner or form, or under what pretence, this is done. (z)2 And countless are the devices by

(y) It is well settled, that if there be a contract for the payment of illegal interest, for the further forbearance of a debt at that time existing, or if money be actually paid for such forbearance, it is usury. Parker v. Ramsbottom, 5 Dowl. & R. 138,3B &C. 257; post,p.*110,n.(f); Evans v. Negley, 13 8. & R. 218; Hancock v. Hodgson, 3 Scam. 333; Carlis v. M'Langhlin, 1 D. Chip. 111; Seneca County Bank v. Schermerhorn, 1 Denio, 135; Gray v. Belden, 3 Fla, 110; Craig v. Hewitt, 7 B. Mon. 475; Young v. Miller, 7 B. Mon. 540. See also Pollard v. Scholy, Cro. Eliz. 20.

(z) Symonds v. Cockerill, Noy, 151; Burton's case, 5 Rep. 69; Richards v. Brown, Cowp. 770; Doe d. Metcalf v. Brown, Holt, N. P. 295; Marsh v. Mar-tindale, 3 B. & P. 154. In Floyer v. Edwards, Cowp. 112, Lord Mansfield said: " In all questions, in whatever respect repugnant to the statute, we must get at the nature and substance of the transaction: the view of the parties must be ascertained, to satisfy the court that there is a loan and borrowing; and that the substance was to borrow on the one part and to lend on the other, and where the real truth is a loan of money, the wit of man cannot find a shift to take it out of the statute. If the substance is a loan of money, nothing will protect the taking more than five per cent. and though the statute mentions only ' for loan of moneys, wares, merchandise, or other commodities,' yet, any other contrivance, if the substance of it be a loan, will come under the word 'indirectly.' " And in Scott v. Lloyd, 9 Pet. 446, in which the bond fide purchase of an annuity is admitted to be valid, although more than six per cent profit be secured. Marshall, C. J., said; " Yet it is apparent, that if giving this form to the contract will afford a cover which conceals it from judicial investigation, the statute would been made as to the onus of proving value. In general, the lender or nominal seller is not called upon to prove, that the value of the goods purporting to be sold and delivered instead of the whole or a part of the money required, was great enough to relieve the contract from usury; (b) but, if it is shown that the borrower was compelled to receive the goods, this casts suspicion on the transaction, and the lender is now obliged to exculpate himself by proof of their value, (c) Where, however, * as in the case just supposed, goods are delivered and received as a part or the whole of the money advanced, and the borrower sells the note given up. Lord Thurlow said, that the court was to inquire whether, under the mask of trading, this was not a method of lending money at an extraor dinary rate of interest, and that there was not a doubt that the transaction was merely for the purpose of raising money. A decree for relief was made. In Doe d. Davidson v. Barnard, 1 Esp. 11, which was an action upon a mortgage, the defendant proved that the mortgage debt was the delivery of stock to the defendant, at 75 per cent. on its value, which he was compelled to sell at 73 per cent., the market price at that time. Lord Kenyon held the transaction clearly usurious. See also Pratt v. Willey, 1 Esp. 40. The proposition, that where upon negotiations for a loan the borrower receives depreciated bank-notes, or property of any kind of a less value than the nominal amount of the loan, such transaction is usurious, is supported by the following American authorities: Delano v Road, 1 Gilmau, 690; Morgan v. Schermerhorn, 1 Paige, 544; Groavenor v Flax and Hemp Manuf. Co. 1 Green, Ch. 453; Valley Bank v Stribling, 7 Leigh, 26; Greenhow v. Harris, 6 Munf. 472; Archer v. Putnam, 12 Smedes & M. 286; Swanson v. White, 5 Humph 373; Anonymous,2 Desaus. 333; Bank of U.S. v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527; Rose v. Dickson, 7 Johns. 196; Dry Dock Bank v. Amer. Life Ins. & Trust Co. 3 Comst. 344; Douglass v. McChesney, 2 Rand. 109; Stribling v. Bank of the Valley, 5 Rand. 132; Ehringhaus v Ford, 3 Ired. 522; Eagleson v Shotwell, 1 Johns. 536; Pratt v Adams, 7 Paige, 615; Weatherhead v. Boyers, 7 Yerg 545, Collins v Secreh, 7 T. B. Mon. 335; Burnham v. Gentrys, id. 354; Warfield v. Boswell, 2 Dana, 224; Moore v. Vance, 3 Dana, 366, 367, Vail v Heastis, 14 Ind. 607. But where the transaction is a sale, and not a shift to cover a loan, depreciated bank-notes or stock may be disposed of at a rate above their current market value without usury.

1 A bonus paid to a guardian, known to be such, as an inducement to loan the money of his ward, is not usury. Fellows v. Longyor, 91 N. Y. 324. - K.

2 Thus if a lender of money takes a deed of the borrower's premises and gives back a lease, reserving a usurious rate of interest on the loan as rent, the transaction which usurers endeavor to avoid the provisions of the statute; as by lending a thousand dollars on a note for a year at lawful interest, and immediately receiving half of it back again in payment; or by selling some property, at the time of the loan, at an exorbitant price, (a) In these cases a nice distinction * has become a dead letter. Courts, therefore, perceived the necessity of disregarding the form and examining into the real nature of the transaction. If that be in fact a loan, no shift or device will protect it." See also Tate v. Wellings, 3 T. R. 531; Chesterfield v. Janssen, 1 Atk. 340; Law-ley v. Hooper, 3 Atk. 278; Drew v. Power, 1 Sch. & L. 182; Hammett v. Yea, 1 B. ft P. 151; Mansfield v. Ogle, 24 Law J. (n. s.) Ch. 450, 31 Eng. L. & Eq. 357; Douglass v. McChesney, 2 Rand. 112; Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. 65; Tyson v. Rickard, 3 Harris ft J. 113; Bank of the V. S. v. Waggener, 9 Pet. 378; Bank of U. S. v. Owens, 2 Pet. 536, 537; Lloyd v. Scott, 4 Pet. 226; Shober v. Hauser, 4 Dev. ft Bat. 91; Delano v. Rood, 1 Gil-man, 690; Spaulding v. Bank of Muskingum, 12 Ohio, 544; Pratt v. Adams, 7 Paige, 615; Dowdall v. Lenox, 2 Edw. Ch. 267; Seymour v. Strong, 4 Hill, 255; per Cowen, J., 4 Hill, 475; Ely v. M'Clung, 4 Port. Ala. 128; Clarkson v. Garland, 1 Leigh, 147; Steptoe v. Harvey, 7 Leigh, 501; Brown v. Waters, 2 Md. Ch. Dec 201; Wright v. McAlexander, 11 Ala. 236; Williams v. Williams, 3 Green, N. J. 255; Heytle v. Logan, 1 A. K. Marsh. 529; Brown v. Nevitt, 27 Miss. 801. (a) See Lowe v. Waller, Dong. 736.