The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-06-09

he note for $70S0 was given for $1,000
oaned by Dickerson to the Rozelles, and
interest on that amount at Is per cent.
per annum from March, 1880, to March,
1851; that the note for $1104S-2o was,
Dy special agreement between the parties,
10 bear interest at the rate of rs per |
cent. per annum after maturity, not
the rate of 10 per cent |
named in its face. The chancellor or
dered the cause 10 be referred to the
clerk to compute the interest, and d.
rected him. to compute interest on
$4,000 at ten per cent. from 1880 TO 1851,
to add the result to the $1,000, and TO
this sum add S2243.40 as the amount
advanced, and $3.50 travelling expen-
ses, and on this result to compute inter
est from March, 1884, TO the date of the
decree, to-wit: November %, 1885, at
ten per cent. per annum. The decree
was entered. up for $10,410.20 as the
amount still due on the S11o4S.25 note
At the time this note was given it
seems that there was an agreement be-
tween the parties that the Dickersons
should establish saw mill and that the
Rozelles should furnish them with
saw logs, the proceeds of the logs
sets out that logs were cut and RATED
down by the Rozelles, but that no saw
mill was ever erected by the Dickersons,
and no sum ever credited on the note
for the logs so RATED down; and prays
the court to recoup against the note,
damages for this violation of their agree
ment This, the chancellor refused 10
do. He dissolved the injunction and
ordered the land to be sold to satisfy
the amount found to be due in the
decree. The complainants appealed.
COOPER, c. J., delivered the opinion of
the Court.
HsId-That the finding of the chan
cellor on the facts is n1anifestly correct.
The contention by the appellants, that
the mortgage cannot be enforced for any
part of the debt existing prior to the
adoption of the Code of $3.50, because
Mrs. Rozelle being married woman.
was under no liability to pay 1t, and
that for this reason IL can not form a
sufficient consideration for a new pro
| mise made after the adoption of the
Code is not maintainable. 1t is true
| that the note of March I'd, 1880, was not
enforceable against her personally, but
it was the debt of her usband, at least
and the mortgage executed by her tC
| secure its payment, bound the rents ant
profits OF her estate mortgaged. and thi
| liability of her estate was sufficient t.
support the new arrangement entered
into in March, 1882, at which time sh,
was relieved of all disability of cover
ture.
| Any stipulation, however and when
ever made, whether testimony, by writ
ing or proved by oral evidence, infect
the contract to which it refers, an'
| brings it within the condemnation o
the usury statute. by the terms of whicl
| it is converted into frpitless and IN
profitable transaction. The purpose o
the statute is to discourage ex0rbitance
and this it does by declaring a forfeitur,
of all interest in any case in which
greater rate of interest is stipulated TO
than ten per cent. The forfeiture is no
simply of all interest for the time dul
ing which the unlawful rate is stipu
lated, but it extends throughout and
cock Extensive with the contract, of whic
it is part, and unless a new and eS
press agreement is made for future lega
interest, none can thereafter be co
lected. 1t was, therefore, error to allo'
interest after the expiration of the tim
for which, by express agreement, usur
was reserved; no interest should hav
been permitted after the making of tn
unlawful contract The chancellor wa
right in not allowing recoupment 70
unliquidated damages. Regersed, an
proper decree entered here.
George Winston and Nugent & NJ
Willie, for the appellants.
d. A. Scott aud Frank Johnston, fo
| tho anna1laa