(e) In Harris v. Boston, 2 Camp. 348, the plaintiffs were seed factors, and bought large quantities of rape seed for the defendant, advancing money thereupon, for which they charged the legal interest; and it was also agreed that they should have a commission of 2 1/2 per cent. upon all the seed purchased. Upon an action to recover an amount due under this contract, to which usury was pleaded, many witnesses swore, that the highest commission they had ever known taken upon such purchases, was one shilling per quar-ter, which, at the current price of rape seed, amounted to exactly one per cent. Lord Ellenborough said: " If the plaintiffs would have duly made the purchase for one per cent. but charged 2 1/2, besides legal interest, where they advanced the money, this commission must be considered an expedient for enhancing the rate of interest beyond five per cent., and is a mere color for usury. See Thurston v. Cornell, 38 N. Y. 281; and More v. Howland, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 371.

(f) Kent v. Phelps, 2 Day, 483; Hutchinson v. Hosmer, 2 Conn. 341; De Forest v. Strong, 8 Conn. 519; M'Kes-son v. M'Dowell, 4 Dev. & B 120; Bart-lett v. Williams, 1 Pick. 294; Stevens v. Davis, 3 Met. 211; Brown v. Harrison, 17 Ala. 774. See Payne v. Newcomb, 100 111. 611. In Carstairs v. Stein, 4 M. & S. 192, the defendants allowed Kensington & Co. to draw upon them, for an amount not exceeding £20,000 at any one time, and were to receive a commission of one half per cent. upon the amount of the bills drawn. In this action, brought by the assignees of Kensington & Co., for balances alleged to be due, the defence of for services in the care, management, and sale of the property, is not usurious without proof of guilty intent. Matthews v. Coe, 70 N. Y. 239. A borrower's agent in charging a commission in addition to the highest rate of interest in procuring the loan, which he does not share with the lender, does not render the transaction usurious, Smith v. Wolf, 55 la. 555; Wyllis v. Ault, 46 la. 46; and the fact that the agent of a borrower who is paid a commission in excess of legal interest by the latter for procuring a loan divides such commission with the agents of the lender will not render the loan usurious, Dickey v Brown, 56 la. 426; unless the claim for commissions is a device to evade the usury laws, Eddy v. Badger, 8 Bissell, 238. The receiving from a borrower by a lender's agent a percentage on the loan and a sum of money for obtaining the release of an incumbrance, the arrangement being without the lender's knowledge or beuefit, is not a usurious transaction. Ballinger v. Bourland, 87 111. 513. But where a lender's agent lends money for the highest legal rate, and is to impose upon the borrower pay ment for his services in examining the title of the property given as security and ascertaining its value, and the agent deducts from the loan five per cent commission and two and a half per cent. more for procuring an extension, the transaction is usurious. Payne v. Newcomb, 100 ELL 611. But see Acheson v. Chase, 28 Minn. 211. - K.

(g) Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. 65; Buckingham v. McLean, 13 How. 151; Merritt v. Benson, 10 Wend. 116, Williams v. Hance, 7 Paige, 581; Ontario Bank v. Schermerhorn, 10 Paige, 109, Cayuga County Bank v. Hunt, 2 Hill, 635; Holford v. Blatchford, 2 Sandf. Ch. 149; Cuyler v. Sanford, 13 Barb. 339, Commercial Bank v. Nolan, 7 How. (Miss.) 508. See also Leavitt v. De Launy, 4 Comst. 364; Marvine v. Hymers, 2 Kern. 223.

(h) Barclay v. Walmsley, 4 East, 55. A bill for £30 was drawn on the defendant, dated July 14, 1801, and came by indorsement to Cutler. The bill was payable thirty days after date, and was presented by "Cutler to the defendant, for acceptance, on the 20th August, when it was agreed that the defendant should pay the bill, then receiving an allowance of 6d. in the pound; and the defendant accordingly paid £29 5s to Cutler, who thereupon gave him the bill. The plaintiff, having been nonsuited at the trial, before Lord Ellenborough, the court refused to grant a rule to set the nonsuit because, in fact, it is no loan, but a voluntary anticipation of a payment