# Musgrove v. Gibbs

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
MUSGROVE, Qui tam &c. verʃus GIBBS.
T
Firʃt.–Richardʃon, though the mediation of Shoemaker, borrowed 800 Dollars of the Defendant, and gave his not for 840 Dollars payable in one month. There was no talk about premium at the time of the loan ; but it was underftood by the witneffes, that the Borrower was to pay at the rate of 5per cent. per month for the money. At the end of the month, Richardʃon paid Ł.168. on account of his note, and gave a new note, drawn in favor of, and indorfed by, Shoemaker, for the ballance. He difcharged the amount of his laft note at different times ; but it was never given up by the Defendant.
RESOLVED, that this was an illegal loaning of money, not the purchafe of a note, fo as to avoid the penalties of the act ; and that the ufury was compleat on taking and receiving the Ł.168; as a proportion of that fum, went towards payment of the illegal in tereft included in the original note.
Second.− The ufurious contract was ftated in feveral Counts of the declaration, to be with Shoemaker and Shirtliʃʃe (who were Partners) jointly ; but the proof was of a not given by Shoemaker alone.
RESOLVED, that this variance is fatal : For, an action upon the note could only be maintained againft Shoemaker, who, if he intended to bind his partner, ought to have ufed the firm of the company ; and, befides, if there fhould be a recovery againft the Defendant on the prefent count, it would be not bar to another qui tam action on the fame note, ftating the unfurious contract to have been with Shoemaker alone.
Third.− Shoemaker and Shirtliʃʃe borrowed feveral fums from the Defendant, and gave their notes payable in a month, with intereft, at the rate of 5 per cent. per month, added to the principal. When thefe became due, they could not pay the money, but drew new notes, making the principal and intereft of the former notes (which were given up by the Defendant) principal, and again adding the fame execeffive intereft upon the agregate amount.
RESOLVED, that, although no money was actually paid to the Defendant, the fecond notes were a fatisfaction of the firft ; and the ​
1787.
ufury was compleat on the Defendant's accepting them, as thereby the original contract between the parties was extinguifhed. And by M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice.– It is well eftablifhed, that the receipt of one thing in fatisfation of another, is a good payment ; as the acceptance of a horfe in lieu of a fum of money ; or of a bond by a third perfon in difcharge of a prior obligation.
Fourth.–the court left it to the Jury to determine whether, on certain facts the Defendant had loaned the money, or purchafed the note in queftion: For, they RESOLVED, that a fair purchafe might be made of a bond or note, even at 20 or 30 per cent. difcount, without incurring the dangers of ufury ; and, if, upon the prefent occafion the Defendant had run the rifque of a forgery, the prefumption ought to operate in her favor, that, for this reafon, fhe had brought the note at a depreciated price.
Sergeant and Bradƒord, for the Plaintiff.– Lewis, Ingerʃol and Dallas for the Defendant.