an obligation shall thereafter bear a rate of interest higher than the legal rate, though it may be objectionable as penal if the rate is excessive, is not usurious.85 The principle applicable to these cases has been thus stated: "Wherever the debtor by the terms of the contract can avoid the payment of the larger by the payment of the smaller sum at an earlier date, the contract is not usurious but additional, and the larger sum becomes a mere penalty." 86 The same principle should render valid a stipulation in the original contract of the borrower for compounding interest if not paid when due though the rate reserved was the full legal rate, and such is the more general rule; 87 but in many States the provision is held, if not usurious, at least penal and unenforceable.88 After lawful interest has once become due, there seems no doubt of the validity of a contract express or implied from custom to pay interest thereafter upon the interest already matured.89 Co., 21 Tex. Civ. App. 530, 53 S. W. 83; Dugan v. Lewis, 79 Tex. 246, 14 S. W. 1024, 12 L. R. A. 93, 23 Am. St. Rep. 332; Cissna Loan Co. v. Gawley, 87 Wash. 438, 151 Pac. 792, L. R. A. 1916 B. 807, Ann. Cas. 1917 D. 722. See also Deming Investment Co. v. Reed (Okla.), 179 Pac. 35, and see supra, § 787. But see contra Miller v. Furgerson, 20 Ky. L. Rep., 801, 47 S. W. 1081. 85 Lang v. Storie, 9 Hare, 542; Union Mortgage, etc., Co. v. Hagood, 97 Fed. 360; Carney v. Matthewson, 86 Ark. 25, 109 S. W. 1024; Walker v. Abt, 83 Ill. 226; Conrad v. Gibbon, 29 Ia. 120; Taylor v. Buzard, 114 Mo. App. 622, 90 S. W. 126; Union Estates Co. v. Adlow Const. Co., 221 N. Y. 183, 116 N. E. 984; Green v. Brown, 22 N. Y. Misc. 279, 49 N. Y. S. 163; Ward's Adm'r v. Cornett, 91 Va. 676, 22 S. E. 494, 49 L. R. A. 550; Blake v. Yount, 42 Wash. 101, 84 Pac. 625, 114 Am. St. Rep. 106, 7 Ann. Cas. 487. See also Cissna Loan Co. v. Gawley, 87 Wash. 438, 151 Pac. 792, Ann. Cas. 1917 D. 722, L. R. A. 1916 B. 807. But see Yndart v. Den, 116 Cal. 533, 48 Pac. 618, 58 Am. St. Rep. 200. 86 Blake v. Yount, 42 Wash. 101, 84 Pac. 625, 114 Am. St. Rep. 106, 7 Ann. Cas. 487. 7 Carney v. Matthewson, 86 Ark. 25, 109 S. W. 1034; Graham v. Fitts, 53 Fla. 1046, 43 So. 512; Union Savings Bank, etc., Co. v. Dottenheim, 107 Ga. 606, 614, 34 S. E. 217; Palm v. Fancher, 93 Miss. 785, 48 So. 818, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 295; Merchants', etc., Bank v. Caston, 97 Miss. 309, 52 So. 633; Western Storage, etc., Co. v. Glasner, 169 Mo. 38, 68 S. W. 917; Bledsoe v. Nixon, 69 N. C. 89, 12 Am. Rep. 642; Covington v. Fisher, 22 Okl. 207, 97 Pac. 615; Newton v. Woodley, 55 S. C. 132, 32 S. E. 531, 33 S. E. 1; Hale v. Hale, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 233, 78 Am. Dec. 490; Roane v. Ross, 84 Tex. 46, 19 S. W. 339; Crider v. San Antonio Real Estate Bldg., etc., Assoc., 89 Tex. 597, 35 S. W. 1047. See also Yndart v. Den, 116 Cal. 533, 48 Pac. 618, 58 Am. St. Rep. 200. 88 See supra, § 1417. 89 Ossulston v. Yarmouth, 2 Salk. § 1697. Effect of exactions by lender's agent. Even though an agent is acting for the lender, the latter is not affected by usury, taken or contracted for without his knowledge or authority, by the agent.90 On the other hand, where the principal authorizes, ratifies, or knowingly takes the benefit of an exaction of his agent, which makes the charge for the use of money exceed the legal rate of interest, the transaction is usurious. And where the principal, as a reasonable man must have known that his agent would make an illegal exaction he is held in effect to have authorized it. 449; Eaton v. Bell, 5. B. & Ald. 34; Eslava v. Lepretre, 21 Ala. 504, 530, 56 Am. Dec. 266; Timberlake v. First Nat. Bank, 43 Fed. 231; First Nat. Bank of Helena v. Waddel, 74 Ark. 241, 85 S. W. 417; Ellard v. Scottish-American Mtge. Co., 97 Ga. 329, 22 S. E. 893; Telford v. Garrels, 132 Ill. 550, 24 N. E. 573; Quimby v. Cook, 10 Allen, 32; Gay v. Berkey, 137 Mich. 658, 100 N. W. 920; Gunn v. Head, 21 Mo. 432; Sanford v. Lundquist, 80 Neb. 414, 118 N. W. 129, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 633; Young v. Hill, 67 N. Y. 162, 23 Am. Rep. 99; Taylor v. Hiestand, 46 Ohio St. 345, 20 N. E. 345; Craig v. McCulloch, 20 W. Va. 148. Cf. Spain v. Talcott, 165 N. Y. App. D. 815, 152 N. Y. S. 611. 90 Call v. Palmer, 116 U. S. 98, 6 Sup. Ct. 301,, 29 L. Ed. 559, affirming 7 Fed. 737; Pearson v. Bailey, 23 Ala. 537; Sherwood v. Swift, 64 Ark. 662, 43 S. W. 507; Wacasie v. Radford, 142 Ga. 113, 82 S. E. 442; Hoyt v. Pawtucket Inst. for Sav., 110 Ill. 390; Chicago Fire Proofing Co. v. Park Nat. Bank, 145 Ill. 481, 32 N. E. 534; Richards v. Purdy, 90 Iowa, 502, 58 N. W. 886, 48 Am. St. Rep. 458; Lusk v. Smith, 71 Kans. 550, 81 Pac. 173; Commonwealth Title Ins. & T. Co. v. Dakko, 89 Minn. 386, 94 N. W. 1088; Lane v. Washington L. Ins. Co., 46 N. J. Eq. 316, 19 Atl. 618; Brown v. Jones, 89 N. Y. Misc. 538, 546, 152 Thus where the prin N. Y. S. 571; Flanagan v. Shaw, 174 N. Y. 530, 66 N. E. 1108, affg. without opinion 74 N. Y. App. Div. 508, 77 N. Y. S. 1070; Barger v. Taylor, 30 Or. 228, 42 Pac. 615, 47 Pac. 618; Williams v. Bryan, 68 Tex. 593, 5 S. W. 401; Brown v. Johnson, 43 Utah, 1, 134 Pac. 590, Ann. Cas. 1916 C. 321; Franzen v. Hammond, 136 Wis. 239, 116 N. W. 169, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 399, 128 Am. St. Rep. 1079. 91 Dryfus v. Burnes, 53 Fed. 410 (Ark.); In re Kellogg, 113 Fed. 120, affd. 121 Fed. 333, 57 C. C. A. 547; Banks v. Flint, 54 Ark. 40, 14 S. W. 769, 16 S. W. 477, 10 L. R. A. 459; Vahlberg v. Keaton, 51 Ark. 534, 11 S. W. 878, 4 L. R. A. 462, 14 Am. St. Rep. 73; Richards v. Bippus, 18 D. C. App. Cas. 293; McCall v. Herring, 116 Ga. 235, 42 S. E. 468; Meers v. Stevens, 106 Ill. 549; Manchester Nat. Bank v. Herndon, 181 Ky. 117, 203 S. W. 1055; Robinson v. Blaker, 85 Minn. 242, 88 N. W. 845, 89 Am. St. Rep. 541; Knoup v. Carver, 74 N. J. Eq. 449, 70 Atl. 660; Bliven v. Lydecker, 130 N. Y. 102, 28 N. E. 625; Schwarz v. Sweitzer, 202 N. Y. 8, 94 N. E. 1090; Bean v. Rumrill (Okl.), 172 Pac. 452; American Mtge. Co. v. Woodward, 83 S. C. 521, 65 S. E. 739; Franzen v. Hammond, 136 Wis. 239, 116 N. W. 169, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 399, 128 Am. St. Rep. 1079, and see cases cited in the preceding note. cipal expressly or impliedly authorizes his agent to get his compensation from the borrower for making a loan at the highest legal rate, and the agent does so the transaction is usurious; 92 and clearly one who in reality advances money, cannot by making the loan in the name of one who acts as a mere dummy, avoid the imputation of usury where he exacts a bonus or commission which with the interest charged as such amounts to more than the legal percentage of the loan.92a § 1698. How far intent is essential. Ignorance of the law is generally no excuse, and where a transaction unmistakably a loan is made for a rate of interest exceeding that permitted by the law, the transaction is necessarily usurious.93 In some jurisdictions, however, it seems that a wilful purpose to transgress the law is essential; 94 and a number of decisions sustain the conclusion that if by a mistake of 92 Fowler v. Equitable Trust Co., 141 U. S. 384, 12 Sup. Ct. 1, 35 L. Ed. 786; Vahlberg v. Keaton, 51 Ark. 534, 545, 11 S. W. 878, 4 L. R. A. 462, 14 Am. St. Rep. 73; Payne v. Henderson, 106 Ky. 135, 50 S. W. 34, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1739; Hall v. Maudlin, 58 Minn. 137, 59 N. W. 985, 49 Am. St. Rep. 492; Carpenter v. Lamphere, 70 Minn. 542, 73 N. W. 514; Kaufman v. Schwartz, 183 N. Y. App. D. 510, 170 N. Y. S. 318. In Nebraska the court lays down the rule broadly: "that where an agent of the lender exacts for the use of money a bonus or commission from the borrower in addition to the highest lawful rate of interest, the transaction is usurious." Hare v. Winterer, 64 Neb. 551, 90 N. W. 544. See also Ridgeway v. Davenport, 37 Wash. 134, 79 Pac. 606. 924 Dalton v. Weber, 203 Mich. 455, 169 N. W. 946. 93 Brown v. Grundy, 111 Fed. 15; Blaisdell v. Steinfeld, 15 Ariz. 155, 186, 137 Pac. 555; German Bank v. De Shon, 41 Ark. 331; Drury v. Wolfe, 34 Ill. App. 23, affd. 134 Ill. 294, 25 N. E. 626; Sylvester v. Swan, 5 Allen, 134, 81 Am. Dec. 734; Vandervelde v. Wilson, 176 Mich. 185, 188, 142 N. W. 1069; Hagan v. Barnes, 92 Minn. 128, 99 N. W. 415; Hebron Bank v. Gambrell (Miss.), 77 So. 148; Bank of Willow Springs v. Utterman (Mo. App.), 184 S. W. 1171, 1172; Fiedler v. Darrin, 50 N. Y. 437; MacRackan v. Bank of Columbus, 164 N. C. 24, 80 S. E. 184, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1043; Gold Stabeck Loan & C. Co. v. Kinney, 33 N. Dak. 495, 157 N. W. 482; Craig v. Pleiss, 26 Pa. St. 271; Carolina Savings Bank v. Parrott, 30 S. C. 61, 8 S. E. 199; Washington Fire Ins. Co. v. Maple Valley Lumber Co., 77 Wash. 686, 138 Pac. 553. 94 Scheuer v. New York Life Ins. Co. (Ala.), 82 So. 157; Anderson v. Creamery Package Co., 8 Ida. 200, 67 Pac. 493, 56 L. R. A. 554, 101 Am. St. Rep. 188; Washington, etc., Investment Assoc. v. Stanley, 38 Or. 319, 63 Pac. 489, 58 L. R. A. 816, 84 Am. St. Rep. 793. See also Patterson v. Wyman (Minn.), 170 N. W. 928; Rosenstein v. Fox, 150 N. Y. 354, 44 N. E. 1027; Hartley v. Eagle Ins. Co., 222 N. Y. 178, 118 N. E. 622. fact as to the amount of interest charged, due to miscalculation or other cause, the lender innocently bargains for more than the legal rate, the transaction is not usurious.95 In New York at least such a mistake of fact on the part of the borrower prevents the transaction from being usurious though the lender had a corrupt purpose, and what was actually bargained for exceeds what the law permits.96 But generally it is held that so far as intent is important, it is only that of the lender which is determinative.97 Intent is chiefly important as characterizing transactions not in the form of loans. The law does not permit parties to evade usury statutes by giving the form of a sale or exchange or bailment to what is really intended as a loan of money, and the validity of such transactions depends on whether the parties were using an apparently legal form as a mere device, or in good faith intended to make such a bargain in reality as they did in appearance.98 § 1699. Parol evidence of usury. Where an agreement in writing purporting to contain the whole contract of the parties is unobjectionable, it has been urged that a collateral oral agreement for usury cannot ren 95 Brown v. Grundy, 111 Fed. 15; Aldrich v. McClay, 75 Ark. 387, 87 S. W. 813; Garvin v. Linton, 62 Ark. 370, 35 S. W. 430, 37 S. W. 569; Rushing v. Willingham, 105 Ga. 166, 31 S. E. 154, Cooper v. Nock, 27 Ill. 301; Brown v. Cass County Bank, 86 Iowa, 527, 53 N. W. 410; Flax v. Mutual &c. Loan Assoc., 198 Mich. 676, 165 N. W. 835; Ward v. Anderberg, 31 Minn. 304, 17 N. W. 630; Smythe v. Allen, 67 Miss. 146, 6 So. 627; Dodds v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co., 62 Neb. 759, 87 N. W. 911; Bevier v. Covell, 87 N. Y. 50; Covington v. Fisher, 22 Okla. 207, 97 Pac. 615; McElfatrick v. Hicks, 21 Pa. St. 402; American Bank v. Sublett, 104 S. C. 366, 89 S. E. 319. 96 In Morton v. Thurber, 85 N. Y. 550, the lender exacted legal interest and a further sum which he falsely represented to be for expenses incurred in securing the money. It was held that the borrower's ignorance of the falsity of this statement prevented the transaction from being usurious. See also Von Haus v. Soule, 146 N. Y. App. Div. 731, 131 N. Y. S. 512; Smythe v. Allen, 67 Miss. 146, 6 So. 627. 97 Brown v. Grundy, 111 Fed. 15 (Ark.); Wright v. Elliott, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 391; Garvin v. Linton, 62 Ark. 370, 35 S. W. 430, 37 S. W. 569; Lukens v. Hazlett, 37 Minn. 441, 35 N. W. 265; Craig v. Pleiss, 26 Pa. 271; First Nat. Bank v. Plankington, 27 Wis. 177, 9 Am. Rep. 453. 98 United States Bank v. Waggener, 9 Pet. 378, 9 L. Ed. 163; Cooper v. Nock, 27 Ill. 301; Gould v. St. Anthony Falls Bank, 98 Minn. 420, 108 N. W. 951; Hamilton v. Moore, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 35. See also Lynn v. McCue, 94 Kans. 761, 773, 147 Pac. 808. der the written contract invalid since the parol evidence rule will deprive the collateral agreement of validity, and, therefore, make the writing the whole contract between the parties.99 But this argument is unsound. Here, as generally, in dealing with illegal contracts, it is the wrongful nature of the plaintiff's endeavor which deprives him of the right to enforce the contract; 1 and it is generally held that the parol evidence rule will not save the written agreement from the defence of usury.2 § 1700. Contracts made or to be performed on Sunday. The prohibition of certain employments or undertakings on Sunday is purely statutory. Aside from such statutes, all contracts legal in themselves, are valid, though made on that day.3 Statutes have, however, been passed prohibiting certain transactions on Sunday. These go back for their original to 1677 3a but the terms of modern American statutes vary and, though generally including all contracts and sales not of necessity or charity, are not always so wide. A statute forbidding secular labor and business does indeed make all sales and contracts to sell, as well as other bargains, illegal. But if, as in the * Allen v. Turnham, 83 Ala. 323, 3 So. 854; Butterfield v. Kidder, 8 Pick. 512. 1See supra, § 1630. 2 Roe v. Kiser, 62 Ark. 92, 34 S. W. 534, 54 Am. St. Rep. 288; McDaniel v. Bank of Bethlehem, 22 Ga. App. 223, 95 S. E. 724; McGuire v. Campbell, 58 Ill. App. 188; France v. Munro, 138 Iowa, 1, 115 N. W. 577, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 391; Union Nat. Bank v. Fraser, 63 Miss. 231; Koehler v. Dodge, 31 Neb. 328, 47 N. W. 913, 28 Am. St. Rep. 518; Macomber v. Dunham, 8 Wend. 550; Cousins v. Gray, 60 Tex. 346. Drury v. Defontaine, 1 Taunt. 131; Richardson v. Goddard, 23 How. (U. S.) 28, 42, 16 L. Ed. 412; Richmond v. Moore, 107 Ill. 429, 47 Am. Rep. 445; Prout v. Hoy Oil Co., 263 Ill. 54, 105 N. E. 26; Ward v. Ward, 75 Minn. 269, 77 N. W. 965; McKee v. Jones, 67 Miss. 405, 7 So. 348; Rodman v. Robinson, 134 N. C. 503, 47 S. E. 19, 65 L. R. A. 682, 101 Am. St. Rep. 877; Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio St. 387; State v. Thomas, 61 Ohio St. 444, 465, 56 N. E. 276, 48 L. R. A. 459; Brown v. Browning, 15 R. I. 422, 7 Atl. 403, 2 Am. St. Rep. 908; Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358. зa 20 Charles II, c. 27. 4 Street v. Browning (Ala. App.), 80 So. 150; Towle v. Larrabee, 26 Me. 464; Pattee v. Greely, 13 Metc. 284; Cranson v. Goss, 107 Mass. 439, 441, 9 Am. Rep. 45; Durant v. Rhener, 26 Minn. 362, 4 N. W. 610; Varney v. French, 19 N. H. 233; Jameson v. Carpenter, 68 N. H. 62, 36 Atl. 554; Nibert v. Baghurst, 47 N. J. Eq. 201, 20 Atl. 252; Northrup v. Foot 14 Wend. 248; Troewert v. Decker, 51 Wis. 46, 8 N. W. 26, 37 Am. Rep. 808. The appointment on Sunday of an agent to sign a contract for the sale of real estate was, therefore, held to confer no power |