The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-03-24
PRICE TWO CENTS

ITSELF considered in connection with the anterior
and then existing laws on the subject II Ho,Uard,
y. e. 80. Here we have a clause in our COnstitu-
ton forbidding the demanding or taking more than
six per cent as interest with authority to the
Legislature to provide 'by id,C" in the way of for
FIXTURES and penalties what shall be the punishment
for demanding or taking more, and in such case
the rate is settled by the case Just cited from II
Howard, that on whole view of the prohibition
and accompanying provision for regulations in re-
gard to the thing prohibited; that the contract is
not avoided by virtue of the prohibition but, by
the regulation which expressly declares it to be So
This case, whilst it admits diversity in the de-
cisions on the subject, is a sufficient answer to
most OF the cases cited at the bar by the appellants
counsel.
We might, if we deemed the occasion to require
It,, multiply authorities to almost any extent in
affirmation of the views we have stated, but we
think we have referred to a sufficient number. and
shall, therefore, content ourselves with brief re-
capltulation of the points of this decision:
l. We hold that the 49th section of the Sd article
OF the Constitution does not, of itself, make void in
whole contract demanding or exacting more than
SIX per cent 1t merely fixes the legal rate of in
tereSt.
2 That it is for the Legislature, bv forfeitures
and penalties, to make the contract void either in
whole or in part, to it may seem best, and by
penalties punish the party or parties making such
a contract.
g. That until the Legislature shall, s.bv la,o, :"
provide the necessary foreitures and penalties the
Act of ls45, chapter 352 remains in force.
we nOld the Act or lS45, with the exception of
its 9th and 9Th sections, to be nothing more than
an act relating to the remedy-that is to say pre-
scrlbes the mode in which the party seeking avoid
any part OF contract the ground of usury, shall
bring such defence to the notice of the Court I'm
I'll he does bring such defence to the notice of the
Court, in legal contemplation, it has no existence
IT, however, it should be deemed expedent to adopt
any other mode, it is for the Legislature provide
it.
From these it follows that the Judgment of the
| Court of Common Pleas must be affirmed, each and
all the prayers offered by the defendant being in con-
tict with the view we have taken, and were there
fore properly refused. Until the Legislature shall
otherwise order, an action may be maintained on a
contract on which was demanded or taken more
than six per cent. interest; and if the defendant
desires to rid himself of liability for the excess be-
yond the six per cent. he must specially plead and
set out what is actually and fairly due on the con-
tract unless he does so he will be responsible to the
extent of the face of the contract.
In further support of this opinion we refer to the
following cases: GroUes and others, Us. Slaughter
Is Peters, 449; Bank Of ChMicotte vs. S,cuyne ana
Others, Ohio, 28O, PSI; Hynes u.s. Cobb, ct. al,
Louisiana Rep. 363; Dallas 80. Judgment affirmed
yer0iS Spencer for the appellant T. G.. Pratt and
| IhOS. S. Alexander for the aDnpllpe