7 Ky. 327 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1816
OPINION of the Court, by
This was a suit in chancery, brought by M’Ginnis, the ap-pellanf, in which lie charges that on the 11th of May 1811, being in want of money, he applied to Hart, the appellee, for the loan of ¾250 for one year, who lent him that sum upon his executing an instrument of wri ting purporting to be an absolute bill of sale for a negro boy aged 14, and delivering the said boy into the pos
The appellee admits the loan, the delivery of the negro boy to him, and the execution of the second bill of sale with the defeasance. But contends that it was a conditional sale of the boy, and that the condition not having been complied with, the right of property became absolutely vested in him.
It is proved that the boy was worth 8400, and his hireage appears to have been worth much more than the interest on the sum borrowed.
From the whole case, there is not the smallest doubt that it was completely the case of a borrowing and lending, and that the boy was held in mortgage for the repayment of the money, and his hireage intended as a setoff for the use thereof. As such, the nature of the writing, drawn as an absolute bill of sale, could not be material. No shift of the kind can be made to evade the statute. It is evident from the appellee’s own showing, that it was a loan, which was intended to be refunded within one year with more than six per cent, on the amount. It was therefore usurious, and the appellant consequently entitled to relief. Had he commenced his suit within the year to be relieved from the contractas usurious and illegal, can it be doubted that he ought to have been relieved upon the usual terms of redemption ? And can a provision in the contract termed a conditional salé, though operating in the nature of a penalty, redeem the case,from its original character? The mischief complained of would thereby become merged, however usurious as interest, in the greater injury of 4nore than double the usury upon the principal.
This case is very similar to the case of Reed vs. Lansdale, (Hard. 7) and ought to be determined upon the saíne principles. .
And it is further decreed and ordered that the appel-lee do pay t® the appellant his costs iii this court expended.