Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-2/Chapter-VII-Of-Interest-And-Usury-Section-I-Of-Interest-And-When-It-Is-Rec.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 03:58:26+00:00

Document:
Originally, the word "usury " meant any money received for the use of other money. Whether it were more or less, such taking was thought to be unlawful, or, at least, immoral. In modern times, a moderate payment for the use of money has been held to be lawful; and to this the name of interest is given; or rather, such payment of money for the use of money, whether it be more or less, is now called interest, while the word "usury" is now confined to the taking of more than the law allows.
(a) Selleck v. French, 1 Conn. 32, Reid v. Rensselaer Glass Factory, 3 Cowen, 393, 5 id 587; Dodge v. Perkins, 9 Pick. 368. And see Kennedy v. Barnwell, 7 Rich. 124.
Koons v. Miller, 3 Watts &S. 271; Watt v. Hoch, 25 Pa. 411.
(c) Easterly v. Cole, 3 Comst. 502, 1 Barb. 235.
(d) M'Allister v. Reab, 4 Wend. 483, 8 Wend. 109; Easterly v. Cole, supra.
1 The authorities on the subject of the allowance of interest in common-law actions are collated and discussed in White v. Miller, 78 N. Y. 393. - K.
(e) Klock v. Robinson, 22 Wend. 157; Prescott v. Parker, 4 Mass. 170; Gwinn v. Whitaker, 1 Harris & J. 754; Hodgdon v. Hodgdon, 2 N. H. 169. And see Nelson v. Felder, 7 Rich. Eq. 395.
(f) Blaney v. Hendrick, 3 Wilson, 205, Walden v. Sherburne, 15 Johns. 409, 424; Liotard v. Graves, 3 Caines, 226, 234; Elliott v. Minott, 2 McCord, 125.
(g) Crawford v. Willing, 4 Dall. 286, 289, Bate v. Burr, 4 Harring. (Del.) 130; Porter v. Monger, 22 Vt. 191; Easterly v Cole, 3 Comst. 502.
(gg) Foote v. Blanchard, 6 Allen, 221.
(h) Mcllvaioe v. Wilkins, 12 N. H. 474; Gammel v. Skinner, 2 Gallia. 45; Barnard v. Bartholomew, 22 Pick. 291. See Goff v. Rehoboth, 2 Cash. 475; Purdy v. Phillips, 1 Kern. 406.
(i) Clark v. Barlow, 4 Johns. 183; Williams v. Sherman, 7 Wend. 109; Den-nison v Lee, 6 Gill & J. 383; Elkin v. Moore, 6 B. Mon. 462; Buck v. Fisher, 4 Whart. 516.
(j) Lush v. Druse, 4 Wend. 313 , Van Rensselaer v. Jewett, 5 Denio, 135, 2 Comst. 135, Van Rensselaer v. Jones, 2 Barb 643. But see Philips v. Williams, 5 Graft. 259; Dana v. Fiddler, 2 Kern. 40. (k) Gibbs v. Bryant, 1 Pick. 118; Sims v. Willing, 8 S. & R. 103; Goodloe v.
Clay, 6 B. Mon. 236; Reid v. Rensselaer Glass Factory, 2 Cowen, 39,5 id. 587.
(l) Dilworth v. Sinderling, 1 Binney, 488; Liotard v. Graves, 3 Caines, 226; Reid v. Rensselaer Glass Factory, 2 Cowen, 393, 5 id. 587; but in Hubbard v. Charles-town Branch R. R. Co., 11 Met. 124, where a party had overdrawn money at a bank by mistake, it was held, that interest could not be recovered nntil after demand made or some default in payment. See Simonds v. Walter, 1 McCord, 97; King v. Diehl, 9 S. & R. 409. See 1 American Leading Cases, 341, where, in a note under Selleck v. French, the whole subject of interest is thoroughly considered.
(m) Jacobs v. Adams, 1 Dall. 52; Hunt v. Nevers, 15 Pick. 500; Breyfogle v. Beckley, 16 S. & R. 264; Nelson v. Cartmel, 6 Dana, 7; Henderson v. Blanchard, 4 La. An. 23; Livermore v. Rand, 6 Foster, 85; Hantz v. The York Bank, 21 Pa. 291. And see Purdy v. Philips, 1 Kern. 406.
(mm) In re Herefordshire Co. Law Rep. 4 Eq. 250.
(mn) North Penn. R. R. Co. v Adams, 54 Pa. 94.
(n) Washington Bank v. Shurtleff, 4 Met. 30.
(o) Ackerman v. Ehrensperger, 16 M. & W. 99.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.