Case Name: Goodloe against Ross
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1840-05-18
Citations: 9 Dana 593
Docket Number: 
Parties: Goodloe against Ross.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 593–602

Head Matter:
Goodloe against Ross.
May, 18.
Usurious interest for a loan of money, having been added to the principal, from time to time, a new note for the whole sum, was given, and assigned to a third party; who was informed by the assignor, how the consideration arose—how much of it was money lent, and how usury; but before taking the assignment he applied to the maker of the note, who assured him that it would be paid; and upon that assurance, he received it—in satisfaction of a bona fide debt due to him, from the assignor; and the debtor afterwards gave hint a new note, with security, for the amount; in which some usury forbearance after the assignment was also included. For the facts see the petition post. Held that, as between the debtor and his present creditor (the assignee,) who allowed a full consideration for the assignment, and has surrendered his recourse upon his assignor—there was a valid and full consideration for the note, to the amount due at the time of the assignment; and neither the debtor, nor his surety, can be relieved from the payment of any part of that sum. On account of the usury between the debtor and original creditor; the remedy for that, is against the latter only. From the payment of the usury included in the new note, for indulgence since the assignment, relief is granted.
Chancery.
From the Circuit Court for Madison County.
[Mr. Owsley for appellant: Mr. Turner for appellee.]

Opinion:
Judge Ewing
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
The ground relied on for a release of the complainant as surety, is unsustained by the proof, against the denial of the answer. the amount allowed for usury is too much.
Ross gave a full and valuable consideration for the note assigned to him by the two Bogies, and took it upon the promise of Bodes to pay it, and was induced afterwards to surrender up the note to Rodes, and thereby to lose is s s recourse on the assignment, upon the execution oi the new note to him by Rodes, with the complainant as surety. This is a sufficient consideration to support the new note to Ross, and Rodes should look to the two Bogies for the usury they exacted, not to Ross. But after the assigned note fell due, twelve percent seems to have been allowed Ross, for the forbearance of payment up to the time when the note sued on was executed to him. The usury thus embraced, added to the usury for the three months upon the amount of the Bogie note and money loaned at the time when the new note was given, with interest thereon up to the date of the injunction herein, amounts to sixty four dollars and eleven cents; and for that amount only, the complainants injunction. Should have been perpetuated, to be credited on the judgment or recognizance, as of the 15th September, 1838, when the injunction was granted, and dissolved as to the residue of the amount enjoined, with ten per cent damages thereon, giving to the complainant his costs in chancery.
May, 23.
It is therefore, the opinion of the Court, that there is no ground for reversal, on the appeal of the appellant; but the decree is reversed on the cross errors of the appellee, and cause remanded that a decree may be rendered as herein directed. And the appellee is entitled to his costs in this Court.