Case Name: Skipwith v. Gibson and Jefferson
Court: Superior Court of Chancery of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1810-02
Citations: 4 Hen. & M. 490
Docket Number: 
Parties: Skipwith v. Gibson and Jefferson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 959–960

Head Matter:
Skipwith v. Gibson and Jefferson.
February Term, 1810.
Usury — Sale of Bank Stock. — It is not usury to sell bank stock at a very high price; since, to consti tute usury, there must he a treaty for the loan or forbearance of money.
In this case an injunction had been applied for upon the ground of usury, and refused, because, from the bill and the evidence, it appeared to have been a fair sale of bank stock, unconnected with either a treaty for the loan or forbearance of money. The bill was, notwithstanding, filed, and the cause regularly brought to a hearing, and was argued by counsel and submitted.
Usury — What Constitutes. — The sale of bank stock at a very high price does not constitute usury; there must be a contract for the loan or forbearance of money. Skipwith v. Gibson, 4 Hen. & M. 490. On this question, the principal case is cited in footnote to Guerrant v. Fowler, 1 Hen. & M. 5; foot-note to Gibson v. Fristoe, 1 Call 62; foot-note to Price v. Campbell, 2 Call 110; Watkins v. Taylor, 2 Munf. 436; Whitworth v. Adams, 5 Rand. 385.
See generally, on this question, monographic note on "Usury" appended to Coffman v. Miller, 26 Gratt. 698.

Opinion:
By the Chancellor.
To constitute usury, both parties must be consenting to the corrupt agreement; and it must proceed from, and be connected with, a treaty for the loan or forbearance of money, (Bristoe v. Gibson, 1 Call, Price v. Campbell, 2 Call,) nothing of which appears in this case; but it was urged, that the price at which the stock sold was sufficient evidence of 1 usury; but certainty not, as bank stock, like tobacco or flour, or any other property, may be, from a variety of causes, worth more or less, and a fair bona fide sale cannot be impeached on account of the price. To all the *cases produced, one sufficient answer may be given, that, in every instance a loan of money was proposed, and, most clearly to avoid the statute, bank stock was advanced, or goods sold at a price above the current value, and hence it was held to be usurious, and all this was correct; and although Skipwith wanted to raise money for a particular object, yet to borrow it, was not even hinted at by him, nor does it appear to have been thought of by the defendants or their broker. The proposition was made for the purchase of stock, unconnected with any thing like a loan; and, as to forbearance, it.is out of the question, for at the time of this transaction there was not any debt between the parties. Bill dismissed with costs.