(c) Auriol v Thomas, 2 T. R. 52; Winch v. Fenn, cited 2 T. R. 62; Caliot v.Walker, 2 Anst. 496; Rooke, J., Ham* mett v. Yes, 1 B & P. 156; Master man v. Cowrie, 3 Camp 488; Ex parte Jones, 17 Yes. 332; Ex parte Hensou, 1 Mad-dock, 115; Ex parte Gwyn, 2 Dea. & Ch. 12; Gibson v. Livesey, cited 4 M. & S. 196; Fussell v. Daniel, 10 Exch. 581, 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 369; Kent v Phelps, 2 Day, 483; Hutchinson v. Hosmer, 2 Conn. 341; Hall v. Daggett, 6 Cowen, 657; Nourse v. Prime, 7 Johns. Ch. 69; Trotter v. Curtis, 19 Johns. 160; Suydam v. Westfall, 4 Hill, 211, Suydam p. Bartle, 10 Paige, 94; Bullock v. Boyd, 1 Hoffm. Ch. 294; Holford v. Blatchford, 2 Sandf. Ch. 149; Seymour v, Marvin, 11 Barb. 80; M'Kesson v. M'Dowell, 4 Dev. & B. 120; Rowland p. Bull, 5 B. Mon. 146; Brown p. Harrison, 17 Ala. 774. See also Ex parte Patrick, 1 Mont. & A. 385; Harris v. Boston, 2 Camp. 348.

(d) Ex parte Gwvn, 2 Dea. & Ch. 12. And in Palmer v. Baker, 1 M. & S. 56, where a right to purchase certain timber then standing on the land of the vendor, was assigned by the vendee, to secure a debt due from him, under which agreement the assignees were to take upon themselves the getting out and working of the timber, and after paying them selves the amount due them, with interest thereon, and after deducting "the further sura of £200, as and for a reasonable profit and compensation for the trouble they would be at in the business, and also all costs, charges, damages, and expenses, which they should or might expend, be put to, or be liable for, on account of the premises, or in any wise relating thereto, were to repay the same to their assignor. the court refused to nonsuit the plaintiff in the present suit, brought by the assignees, against the sheriff, who had seized a portion of the timber as the property of the assignor, and decided that, as the jury had not found that the compensation was colorable or excessive, the court could not Bay that the contract was usurious, since the compensation must therefore be taken to be a reasonable one, for the services performed and the trouble incurred. In Baynes p. Fry, 15 Ves. 120, a claim was

1 A contract by which a commission merchant advances to a dealer money to purchase commodities, and besides legal interest is to receive a percentage as commission in which case, * of course, it will not be allowed. The party drawing a bill may also charge a sum, in addition to legal interest, as the rate of exchange between the place where the loan is actually advanced and the place where it is to be repaid; provided such charge is the customary rate, and therefore not a device to cover usury. (g) So, if the acceptor of a bill pays it before it is due, it is held that he may deduct a larger sum than legal interest on the amount, until the day of the maturity of the bill, without the transaction being usurious,(h) usury was alleged, and evidence was offered to show, that the commission of one half per cent. was unreasonable, and more than the accustomed rate. Lord Ellenborough directed the jury, that if the commission could be fairly set to the account of trouble and inconvenience, it was not usurious; otherwise, if the commission overstepped the bona fide trouble, and was mixed with an advance of money, in order to effect an inducement for such advance, from time to time, and his lordship inclined to consider the transaction, under the circumstances, usurious, but left it to the jury, who found otherwise for the plaintiff. Upon a motion for a new trial the court refused to disturb the verdict. Lord Ellenborough C. J., said: "The principal question has been, whether the one half per cent. agreed to be charged for commission, in this case, is clearly referable to an usurious contract between the parties, for the payment of interest above five per cent. upon a loan of money, or whether it may not be referred to an agreed case of .remuneration, justly demandable for trouble and expense incurred, in the accepting and negotiating bills remitted to and drawn upon them, and in the doing such other business as is stated to have been done by the Kensingtons, for the houses or rather for the house of the defendants, under its different names and descriptions. ... All commission, where a loan of money exists, must be ascribed to and considered as an excess, beyond legal interest, unless as far as it is ascribable to trouble and expense bond fide incurred, in the course of the business transacted, by the person to whom such commission is paid; but whether anything and how much is justly ascribable to this latter account, namely, that of trouble and expense, is always a question for the jury, who must upon a view of all the facts, exercise a sound judgment thereupon." His lordship recapitulated here the suspicious circumstances in the case, and then said: "These circumstances certainly laid a foundation for suspecting that the high rate of commission contracted for was a color for usury, upon loans which were stipulated not to be required, but which were in fact required and made, from the beginning to the end of this business. But this question, that is, whether color or not, was a question for the consideration of the jury, and to their consideration it was fully left, with a strong intimation of opinion, on the part of the judge, that the transaction was colorable, and the commission of course usurious. The jury have drawn a different conclusion, and which conclusion, upon the view they might entertain of the facts, they were at liberty to draw; and they, having done so, for the reasons already stated, we do not feel ourselves, as a court of law, and acting according to the rules by which courts of law are usually governed, in similar cases, at liberty to set aside that verdict and grant a new trial."

But it *seems, that the sum paid as a compensation or commission for service or trouble in any case, must not exceed the amount usually taken in the course of trade in that business; and if it do, such excess will make the contract usurious. (e) If there be such charge, it will be a question for the jury, whether it is in fact a reasonable compensation for services rendered, or a mere pretence for obtaining usurious interest; (f) made upon certain property, for commission money. The party claiming the commission, having advanced money at five per cent. interest, took bills upon Hamburg, which bills he sent there for the purpose of obtaining their amount, and upon this transaction the commission was claimed, which claim was objected to because it was usurious. Lord Chancellor Eldon said: "The first case upon this point was that upon the circuit, in 1780, Beuson v. Parry, where Lord Chief Justice, then Baron, Eyre, held, that a country banker, discounting bills payable in London, could not take a commission, but that was set right upon an application to the court. I take the facts of this case, as far as I can understand them, from the accounts that have been handed up, to stand thus: Hanson advanced money to these parties, upon the terms of receiving interest; desiring them, if they had bills upon Hamburg, to put them into his hands, for the purpose of sending them there, to procure acceptance and payment; in order to bring himself home, taking a reasonable commission for his trouble in doing so. That, according to modern doctrine, is not usurious."