the notes secured

31. A replication to such plea, setting out a suit upon by the same mortgage, a plea of usury under the statute, a denial of the usury by the plaintiff, verified by his oath, and a judgment against the defendant upon the plea, is good, as showing the matter to be res judicata; but without an allegation of such judgment, the plea is bad. Ibid.

VI. NEW-JERSEY.

32. The true rule of calculating interest where partial payments have been made, is to cast the interest on the principal to the time of the first payment; and if the payment equals, or is greater than the interest, deduct the payment; if the payment does not equal the interest, it is not to be credited until, with future payments, it equals or exceeds the interest then due. BAKER vs. BAKER, 4 Dutcher's Reports, 13.

33. If an erroneous rule of computing interest is adopted, with the knowledge and consent of the parties, although adopted ignorantly, it is a mistake in law; but if there is mistake in the calculation, it is a mistake of fact. Ibid

VII. NEW-YORK.

34. It seems, that the mere fact, that on a contract for the sale of land, a higher than the legal rate of interest is reserved upon the deferred pay ments, does not render the transaction usurious. CUTLER vs. WRIGHT, 8 Smith's (New-York) Reports, 472.

VIII. OHIO.

35. Where, at the time of the negotiation of a loan, there was an understanding that usurious interest was to be paid annually in advance, in addition to the highest legal rate to be expressed in the note, and to be paid at the end of any year during which the loan continued, it being contemplated to continue the loan from year to year, at the wish of the borrower, upon the terms stated; but to secure the loan, a note with sureties was given and received, which, though expressing the rate of interest, and that the interest was to be paid annually, was, in legal effect, payable immediately. Held, that the understanding of the parties was controlled by the terms of the note, and that the giving time afterwards, in pursuance of the understanding, was not giving time under an obligatory contract, and did not discharge the sureties. JONES et al. vs. Brown, 11 Critchfield's (Ohio) Reports, 601. See McCOMB vs. KITTRIDGE, 14 Ohio Reports, 348, title "Banks."

IX. PENNSYLVANIA.

36. Where the will, creating a trust, made it the duty of the trustee to invest the surplus of unexpended income, the trustee will be surcharged with interest on the amount, though so small as to make investment difficult. MCCAUSLAND'S APPEAL, Wright's Reports, 466.

37. A trustee is liable for interest on moneys received by him, and which he neither invested nor paid over, in compliance with the duties of his trust. Ibid.

X. VERMONT.

38. Payments of usurious interest, eo nomine, for the loan of money represented by a note, which in itself contains no usury, can be recovered back by the party making them, whether the note is paid in full or not; and the fact that such payments have been made by the principal will not avail the surety as a defence pro tanto, in an action on the note against him alone. WARD US. WHITNEY, 3 Shaw's (Vermont) Reports, 89.

39. The right to recover such usurious payments, or to have them applied as payments upon, or offsets to the note, is confined to the party who has paid the usury. Ibid.

40. C. borrowed $1,500 of the orator, and gave him his note for the amount, with interest, and secured the same by mortgage. He paid the orator seven per cent. interest upon the note for several years, and the annual endorsements of these payments showed the amount actually paid, and expressed them to be as and for each year's interest. In a petition for foreclosure of this mortgage against C. and a subsequent mortgagee, C. having, without consideration, released to the orator all claims of usurious interest paid by him, it was held, that the subsequent mortgagee was not entitled to have the excess of such annual payments of interest, over six per cent., applied in reduction of the amount due upon the note. CHURCHILL AND WIFE vs. COLE et al., 3 Shaw's (Vermont) Reports, 93.

XI. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

41. An agent who advances his money, at New-Orleans, upon an undertaking of his principal to replace it there, by accepting and paying bills drawn there by the agent, is liable to pay the New-Orleans rate of interest, if he dishonors the bills. LANUSSE VS. BARKER, 3 Wheaton's Reports, 101.

42. A contract for the loan of money, entered into in Rhode Island, is to be governed by the usury laws of that State, though security was agreed to be taken upon lands in Kentucky. DE WOLF vs. JOHNSON, 10 Wheaton's Reports, 367.

43. A contract tainted by usury, according to the laws of one State may be a valid basis for a new contract in another State. Ibid.

THE LAW RELATING TO NOTARIES PUBLIC.

1. A notary public, who undertakes to protest a note and notify tha parties for a compensation, is liable, if he negligently fails to give due legal notice. BOWLING vs. ARTHUR, 34 Mississippi (5 George) Reports, 41.

2. If a notary, in taking the acknowledgment of a deed, neglect to state in his certificate that the party was personally known to him, or properly identified, he is guilty of gross negligence, for which he is responsible. FOGARTY US. FINLAY, 10 California Reports, 239.

3. It is no excuse to him that the blank certificate had been partly filled up by the grantee's attorney; it is the duty of the notary to see to it, that the certificate is correct; it is as faulty to sign without reading it, as to sign an incomplete one. Ibid.

4. The party is guilty of no negligence in not seeing to it that the certificate is correct, as he has a right to rely on the professional skill and duty on the notary. Ibid.

5. A notary's power to take and certify acknowledgments is derived solely from the statute, and is not ex officio, and, therefore, can be exercised on in strict conformity with the statute. BOURS vs. ZACHARIAH, 11 California Reports, 281.

6. To take and to certify the taking of an acknowledgment are parts of one transaction, to be completed at one time; therefore, the certificate cannot be subsequently altered or amended. Ibid.

7. No demand is necessary to be made of a clerk for money which he has received officially, and is bound to pay over. LITTLE VS. RICHARDSON,

6 Jones' (North Carolina) Law Reports, 305.

8. In cases where it is admissible to dispense with personal service of a notice, the notice ought, in general, to be served in the form required for citation and other analogous proceedings. McDermott vs. Cannon, 14 Louisiana Annual Reports, 313.

9. In computing the time of giving a notice, either the day of giving, or the day of the performance, is to be excluded. MITCHELL VS. WOODSON, 37 Mississippi (8 George) Reports, 567.

10. A publication once a week for one month, means once a week, the first and last days, excluding one and including the other, to be a cale dar month apart. Ibid.

11. If the vendee be told by the vendor, just before the time for deliv、 ery, that the goods will not be delivered, because they have been sold to another, no demand is necessary. FOSTER VS. LEEPER, 29 Georgia Reports, 294.

12. Notice to a broker who is employed to make sale of a check, that the paper of the maker of the check has laid over unpaid, is notice to the principal. BROwn vs. MontgomeRY, 20 New-York (6 Smith) Reports,

287.

13. Although a party has notice of circumstances, putting him upon inquiry, yet if he with due diligence inquires and becomes satisfied by evidence upon which a man may reasonably rely, that a fact does not exist, then he is to be regarded as acting bona fide, and without notice of such fact. HOYT vs. SHELDON, 3 Bosworth's (N. Y.) Reports, 267.

14. Where one has notice of an opposing claim he is put upon inquiry, and is presumed to have notice of every thing which a proper inquiry would have enabled him to discover. BLACKWOOD vs. JONES, 4 Jones' (North Carolina) Equity Reports, 54.

15. Notice to the attorney and agent of a party is notice to his principal. REED'S APPEAL, 34 Pennsylvania State Reports, 207. WALKER VS. AYRES, 1 Clarke's (Iowa) Reports, 449.

16. No demand on an agent is necessary, where the ground of action is the agent's breach of duty, by which less money came to his hands for the principal than otherwise would, and also for the failure of the former to pay over the money actually received. DEVER vs. BRANCH, 18 Texas Reports, 615.

17. An agreement to return a note, will, after a reasonable time, support an action, without any demand or refusal. HENLEY vs. BUSH, 33 ·Alabama Reports, 636.

I. Interest. The legal rate of interest in Maine is six per cent., and no higher rate is allowed on special contracts. (R. S. 322. Cap. 45, sec. 2.)

II. Penalty for Violation of the Usury Laws.-Excess of interest not recoverable, nor costs where excess of interest has been taken; but the defendant may recover costs of the party taking the excess. Excess of interest may be recovered back by the party having paid it. The provisions do not extend to bona fide holders of negotiable paper for value without notice. (R. S. 323. Cap. 45, secs. 2 and 3. Laws of 1862, ch. 136.)

III. Damages on Bills.-The damages on bills of exchange negotiated in Maine, payable in other States, and returned under protest, are as follows: (R. S. 519. Cap. 82, sec. 35 :)

1. New-Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New-York,.

3 per cent. 2. New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia, South Carolina, Georgia,.. 6 per cent. 3. All others, namely, North Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, California,....9 per cent. IV. Sight Bills.-Grace is allowed on bills, drafts, checks, &c., payable in this State at a future day or at sight, but not on those payable on demand (R. S. 264.)

Decisions.

The legislature of a State may constitutionally impose a tax on the capital stock, &c., of a bank previously incorporated by it, unless the right has been expressly relinquished. Portland Bank vs. Apthorp, 12 Mass. 252; Providence Bank vs. Billings, Pet. 514; Judson vs. State, Minor, 150.

When the interest on a note is payable annually, so much as has accrued more than six years before the commencement of an action thereon, will be barred by the statute of limitations, if the note be not witnessed, though the note being payable on time, be recoverable, with the interest which has become due within six years.

5 Green R. 81.

The law does not authorize the recovery of interest upon interest, though a promissory note is made payable with interest annually; (7 Green R. 48) but the taking compound interest is not usury. 1 Fairfield's R. 315.