Case Name: Legoux, et al. vs. Wante
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1810-12
Citations: 3 H. & J. 184
Docket Number: 
Parties: Legoux, et al. vs. Wante.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 3
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
Legoux, et al. vs. Wante.
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. A bill was filed by Wante against the appellants, for the foreclosure of the equity of redemption in certain lands mortgaged by Legoux to Wante, by deed dated the 2d of November 1799, to secure the payment of S5900, on the 1st of October 1805, and for other relief, &c. The answer of Legoux stated, that the mortgage was -executed to secure the payment of money loaned at a usurious interest, and he pleaded and relied on the act of assembly passed on that subject. Me afterwards, by his petition, prayed that the complainant answer certain interrogatories to be propounded to him, and among others the following — ‘!4th. Bid not the complainant press for the payment of his debt, and did he not afterwards consent to give time to the defendant, Legoux, to pay the same; if so, what time, and what sum did the complainant, agree to give for the time? 5th. What rate of interest did the complainant demand for his money if he gave further time to pay the debt, and what rate of interest did the defendant finally agree to pay, &c. 6th. Did or did not Le-: goux, to secure the payment of the sum of money before mentioned as due from him on the 2d of October 1799, execute the deed of mortgage; was there any other consideration for that deed except the said debt, and what other consideration?” The complainant excepted to these interrogatories, and demurred generally to their being answer - ed.
To a biil in «Traneery ibr the sale of mortgaged premise',' lh? .deihndaiu cuMiverud, tiuiL lire inert,pige vas* exeenfei! to segure the payment of money loaned at a u»u-rum interest, amt he exhibited certa in illtl’lTOffJtO ries tube an>\vered by the compiaiutuit 2£fld9 that the prmeipie of equitj is, Unit no petMm is bouu’l lo answer so as to subject 5iimse«i 10 punisnmeni; but not so where the answering' would create or occasion a forfeiture of Iris claim. The answer of the complainant admit-ling' the usury, might subject Mm to a. forfeiture or tine for the oi-
Where the person woo limy has e borrowed money on usurious interest, seeks rehefin equity, Jie must do equity, and do vhui is rijyht between the parties, which is the paying, or tendering) what is legally due,
Kilty, Chancellor, (July 1898). The chancellor considers the principle of equity to be, that no person is bound to absWpr so as to subject himself to punishment; and not, as contended for the defendant, where the answering would ci e-ate or occasion a forfeiture of his claim. In this case, the answer of the usury might subject him to a forfeiture or fine for the offence; and it has not been shown, by the counsel for the defendant, that it woujtl not. If is certain that where the person who may have borrowed money on usurious interest seeks relief in equity, he must do equity, and do what is right between the parties, which is the paying or tendering what is legally due, but it is contended for the defendant that he does not bring the suit, or desire the interference of the court.
A decree was afterwards passed for a sale of the mortgaged premises, to satisfy the whole of the mortgaged debt. Iri that decree the chancellor stated, that, the burthen of the proof of usury was on Legoux, and that it was not proved. That the complainant’s counsel in the argument stated his willingness to take a decree for the principal and legal interest, on account of the insufficiency of the property; but the court could not found a decree upon such an oiler, and therefore decreed for the whole sum. From this decree the defendants appealed to this court, where the cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Polk, and Buchanan, J. by
Johnson, (Attorney General,) for the Appellants;
and by
Boyd and Moule, for the Appellee.

Opinion:
decree affirmed.