Hogg v. Ruffner
66 U.S. 115
SCOTUS
1861
Check Treatment
Mr. Justice GRIER.

If the exception taken to the decree of the court- below by. the complainant be sustained, it will be unnecessary to notice those taken by the respondents. ;

Was the contract of Brice and Birkey with Ruffner, which shows the consideration of the mortgage and notes assigned to the complainants, usurious?

The statute of Indiana declares, that “the rate of interest upon the loan or for the forbearance of any money, &c., shall be at the rate of six” per cent.; but “if a greater rate of interest shall be contracted for, received, or reserved, the contract shall not, therefore, be void;” “the plaintiff shall recover only his principal, without interest,” and the “defendant shall recover costs.”

To constitute usury, there must either be a loan and a taking .of usurious interest, or the taking of more than legal interest for the forbearance of a debt or sum of money due. • This statute does not profess to enlarge the commonJ^w definition of the term, while it aims to include the common devices"' resorted to by usurers to evade its penalties.'

The original contract by which a debt is created may be for the purchase and sale of land, and it will be, nevertheless, contrary to the statute for the vendor to demand or receive more than legal interest for the forbearance of such debt, as in the case of Crawford vs. Johnson, (11 Indiana Reports, 258,) where separate notes were taken for two per cent, interest, in addition to the legal interest, on the sum due for the purchase money of land.

But it is manifest that-if A propose to sell to B á tract of land for $10,000 in cash, or for $20,000 payable in ten annual instalments, and if B prefers to pay the larger sum to gain time, the contract cannot be called usurious. A vendor may prefer $100 in hand to double the sum in expectancy, and a purchaser may prefer the greater price with the longer credit; and one who will not distinguish between things that differ, may say, with apparent truth, that B pays a hundred per cent .for forbearance, and may assert that such a contract is.usurious. but whatever truth there may be in the premises, the conclusioi is manifestly erroneous. . Such á contract has none of the char acteristics of usury; it is not for the loan of money, or forbear anee of a debt.

Does this case come within this category ? We are of opinion that it does. '

The mortgage and-notes in question were given in execution of a contract between the parties; dated the 20th of April,, 1855. This coutract is in writing, and signed by the parties. It would be tedious and unprofitable to enumerate its various covenants; but the chief subject of it is a sale of land by Brice and Birkey to .Ruffner for the sum of $38,000, in ten annual instalments, the sale to include, also, certain personal property. There is no proof that the recitals of this contract are untrue, or that the consideration of the notes and mortgage in question was other than is there stated. These parties had formed a partnership in February, 1854, “for dealing in land) farming,” &e., &e. Brice and Birkey advanced money, and had each an interest of one-third in the lands whose title was in the name of Ruffner. In October -of the same year this partnership was dissolved, and Ruffner afterwards agreed ■to pay certain sums of money to the other parties for a release of their interest in the land, and gave them his obligations, Afterwards, in February, 1855, in order to extinguish these obligations, which he was unable to meet, he agreed to.reconvey to Brice and Birkey certain tracts of the land. In the spring of. 1855 they made arrangements to take possession of these lands, with their tenants, stock, farming utensils, &c., &c. Ruffner then refused to let them have possession. Finding they could not obtain possession without great and ruinous delay, a proposition was made to sell or release all their interest in the lands of the firm, if Ruffner would pay in cash the amount of money advanced by them. After some negotiations and calculations, this amount was ascertained, to be about twenty thousand dollars. . They professed a willingness to receive this amount, if paid in cash, or security given that it should be actually paid in six months. A conditional deed was proposed, by which the title was to become absolute .in case payment was not made on the day. But counsel advised that this would be construed a mortgage, in whatever form of words it "might, be drawn. Ruffner being unable to furnish such security as was required, this agreement was not signed or-executed. Proposals were, then made to purchase for a larger consideration, to include the farming stock, &e., owned by Brice and Birkey, on a credit running ten years. On these terms they demanded forty thousand dollars, and Ruffner offered thirty-six thousand, and finally the amount of thirty-eight thousand was agreed upon, as set forth in the contract referred to.

Now the hearsay testimony of witnesses, who relate what they “ understood ” from conversations with the parties, or may have misunderstood to be the contract between them, and their inference, because the parties had a' “settlement,” that therefore the first terms proposed, but not accepted, amounted to .the ascertainment of a debt due, cannot be received to contradict the written contract of the parties and the testimony of witnesses cognizant of the whole antecedent history of the transaction. Nor is there any irreconcilable discrepancy between their impressions or “ understandings,” and the written agreements and other testimony. They construed the “ settle ment” of the difficulties, which had long existed between the parties, to mean a balance of accounts of money due from one party to the other, and consequently inferred that the -increased amount of the securities'was for usurious interest for the forbearance óf its payment. " This was but the usual error-of arriving at a false conclusion by the'úse of equivoeal or ambiguous terms.

The decree of the court below is, therefore, erroneous, in so far as it is affected by the assumption that the contract was usurious.

Decree of the Circuit Court reversed, and record remitted, with directions to proceed in conformity to the opinion of this court.