Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/817

 RATION Ali LIFE INS. CO. V. HARVET. 805 �National Life Ins. Co. v. Hartet. (Oircuit Uowt, D. lowa. May 18, 1881.) �1. iNSTJKAirCE— LoASr— USUBT. �Where a contraot for the loan of money and an agreement for insurance upon the life of the borrower are bleuded together in one and the same transaction, and the proof shows that the policy of insurance was taken and the premium paid in advance in considera- tion of the loan, the transaction is usurious if the sum so paid as prer mium is greater than the interest allowed by law. �McCraet, C. J. Where a eon tract for the loan of money and an agreement for insurance upon the life of the borrower are blended together in one and the same transaction, and the proof shows that the policy of insurance was taken and a premium paid in advance in consideration of the loan, and that such consideration was over and above the interest allowed by law, the transaction is usurious. Ins. Co. v. Kittle, 1 McCrary,234r.* It is not necessary in such a case to show that the premiums charged were unreasonable. It will be presumed that there was in the transaction of insurance a profit to the insurance company, the lender ; and if, inde- pendently of the premium paid in advance, the maximum rate of interest has been charged and taken, the insurance and the payment of a premium in advance, if intended as a condition precedent to and a further consideration for the loan, will make it usurious. The profit accruing to the lender from the insurance transaction in such a case will be pre- sumed to be something, and, whether great or small, being in excess of the lawful interest, it is usury. �We have, therefore, only to consider whether the proof in this case shows that the policy of insurance upon the life of the respondent was required as a condition precedent to the loan and constituted an additional consideration therefor. This question must, in view of the evidence, be answered in the affirmative. It seems that the proposition was distinctly made to the respondent that if he would apply for a $10,000 life policy the company would loan him $2,000, and the �* s. c. 2 Fbd. Eep. 113. ��� �