t. USUBt'..:J.WRA1' 'OoNS'l'1'1'utr]ts-B()NUIl '10 ,BOltROWER'S' AGENT.
WAelle ,An :l\gElut in a iI,oaJ,l transactiQJ1. is agent of the borrower, and' not eu<Ie.r. .. e r. what the borrower th.e. to his own, agent .. teJ;l!ll :to.'tlli;) . e usW1'.tor.eceiVe8"a ponus fr.OD;1 paysborroweris 1m.mafot' '8 loan is it0lltl.rt of the wm paid for the loan or torbearance
i " "
aBAlIE-BOltU&'irO LBNDllll\'. AGlIlNT. ,If lUl..·iM ... '" loa.u traJ1Saction Is .. .. ...
..t Of. tha.lender.vnte.ss th.e proOf. to the agent to for his the la w.ful rate of interest. or he ..had knowledge, express . or lluplihlcl" ,that the' agent had such a purpose. be asserted to ' : of interest does not include by 1,l1e '1luthority to, loan at an illegal rate. ,An authority to violate the la\\t'Wlll'uever be preSumed. ' . . the, qourt.)
:,An aJl¥lwrHl.to loan money ata
. In Equity. i Bill bY' Oharles L Dryfus against Cha.rles Burnes ttnd Catherine: iBuPhes rotoreelose a mortgage. Decree for plaintiff.
P District Judge. This is a suit· to foreclose tt mortgage given tol$6curea loan of $8,000 a.t 10 per cent. interest. The defendants, plead usury. The facts produced in evidence show that the money of plaintiJf was received· by' Burnes and wife from plaintiff through Patterson &'PaI'kel', loan and real-estate agents. By the contract, plabltiff was to have 10 per cent. interest 01'1. the loan. On agreement <with Burnes and wife with Patterson &, Parker they were to have 2 per cent. ·for negotiating the loan, for securing the money for them. Whose agenta· were they? I find from the proof offered in the case ,that they were the agenta of Burnes and wife alone. This being. true, it would make no difference that they received a bonus of $100 from the borrowers. This doctrine is clearly sustained by Vahlberg v. Keaton, 51 Ark. 544, 11 S. W. Rep. 878, in which case the supreme court, speaking Of. a condition where. the agent acted as Iilu,ch, .of the borrower alone, says:
"Whether herecei,ed or did not receive a. bonus is immaterial to the plea of uSlU-y.What the borrower paid to his own agent for procuring a loan is no partot the sum paid fotthe loan or·:torbenrance of.money."
.If it coll1dbe held the facta that Parker were the agents of plaintiff in this loan transaction, it could not be held from the proof that plaintiff had given Patterson &, Parker any authority to exact for his benefit any more than the lawful rate of interest; nor that he had any knowledge, actual or constructive, of any such purpose. TheIl, upon this ground, under the doctrine declared in the case of Call v. Palmer, 116 U. S. 98, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, usury could not be asserted to defeat the remedy in this case, as,
under such circumstances, the loan is not thereby. rendered usurious. In Call v. Palmer, this used:
"It is settled that when an &.gent, who is authorized by his principal to .lend money for lawful interest, exacts for: .his own benefit more than the lawful rate, without authority or.knowledge of his principal, the loan is not thereby rendered usmious."
Again, said case declares:
"An authority to l.)an money at a legal rate of Interest docs not Include by implication the authority to loan at all illegal rate. An authority to violate tha law will never be presumed.",
From the proof in the case, and the law applicable thereto, it becomes manifest that the plea of usury has not been sustained. That leaves the case without any defense, and the decree mllilt therefore go for plaintiff, and it is so adjudged
FULLER et al. v. HAMILTON COUNTY. (Circuit Court, E. D. Tennessee, S. D. December 14, 1892.)
REB JUDICATA-FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.
A final decision by a state court bars a subsequent suit in a federal court on the same cause of lwtlon as effectually when the issues Involve questions of general commercial law and the general principles of equity, and the like, as when they involve the construction of a state la,v or constitution, or some local law, usage, or custom; and it is immaterial whether the cause was decIded as a question of law, on a demurrer to the p.etition, or after a full hearing on issues of fact
In Equity. Bill by John P. Fuller and others against the county of Hamilton, Tenn., to establish t,itle to a half interest in certain lands, and to have a partition thereof. Heard on a. plea of res judicata. Plea sustained. Wells & Body, for complainant&. W. H. De Witt, for defendant.
KEY, District Judge. Complainants allege in their bill of complaint that they are the tenants in common with defendant in lots 42 and 44, Walnut street, Chattanooga; that they are the only children and heirs at law of Simeon Fuller, who died intestate in 1846, seised of one half fee-simple interest in said lots; that commissioners of Chattanooga, in 1839, conveyed said lots to Simeon Fuller and Moses Pressley, jointly, (brothers-in-law,) and the deed was duly re. corded in the register's office of Hamilton county, in Book I, p. 399. It is averred that said half interest has never been conveyed by said Fuller, his heirs or representatives, but that Fuller held it as tenant in common with Pressley until his death, and that it is now held by complainants, nor have they been ousted therefrom, or notified of any repudiation or adverse claim or holding,-and deny that any adverse possession can be charged against them. It is alleged that the register's office of Hamilton county gives notice to the world that Fuller's interest has never passed from or been divested out of him or his heirs. It is further alleged that soon after this purchase Fuller was