Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/751

 PALMEB V. CALL. 789 �notes were given, The plaintiff did all the business in connec- tion with the notes and mortgage throngh the house of Burn- ham, Ormsby & Co. He never saw the defendant, nor did any' business with him in person. The plaintiff placed the notes in the hands of Bumham, Ormsby & Co. for collection of ■ interest, and reloan to Mr. Call. The interest notes were paid at maturity to the plaintiff until November, 1875, when, one of the coupon notes for $500 being due, the defendant, at the instance and request of Burnham, Ormsby & Co., entered into a new contract for the extension of the loan, by which he gave the plaintiff the said note for $11,000. The plaintiff advanced and paid the sum of $1,000 in cash, and Burrendered the $10,000 note to the defendant. It seems that Bumham, Ormsby & Co. applied $500 of the cash pay- ment to the payment of the coupon note then due, and, with- out knowledge of the plaintiff, retained $500 as a bonus for effecting the new loan. The plaintiff did not authorize the retention of the $500 bonus by Bumham, Ormsby & Co., received no benefit from it, and, in fact, had no notice of it when he received the $11,000 note and mortgage. �O'Connel de Springer and Crawford & Soper. for plaintiff. �George E. Clarke, Hubbard e Clarke, and Wright, Oatch e Wright, for defendant. �LovB, D. J. It is well settled that to make a loan nsurious there must be an intent on the part of the lender to take more than the legal rate of intejest. Tyler on XJsury, 103; Condit v. Baldwin, 21 N. Y. 219 ; Loyd v. Scott, 4 Pet. 205 ; U. S. Bank v. Waggener, 9 Pet. 309 ; Jonea v. Berryhill, 25 lowa, 289. �Doubtless, in general, the intent of an agent acting within the scope of his authority may be imputed to the principal. But it is settled beyond question that if any agent in good faith makes a loan for another, and without the knowledge or authority of his principal, and for the agent's own benefit exacts more than legal interest, the loan is not thereby rendered nsurious. In such case the law does not impute the knowledge and the intont of the agent to the principal. This doctrine is supported by numerous authorities both la ��� �