the act to regulate interest, was passed on the 13th March, 1850, and fixed the rate at ten per cent., but allows parties to agree upon any other rate whatever, even compound interest j' and any judgment upon such contract shall be entered accordingly, and bear like interest."
" Clai/'sDiqest, 589; Edit., 1843. Code of Alabama, Ormond. Sec. 1523; Edit. 1852.
^Rev. Stat, of Arkansas, 469; Edit. 1838. English Diy. 614 ; Edit. 1848.
In a case where plaintiffs held several notes against defendant, and by agreement with him, calculated the interest due on each note, added it to the principal, and took a new note for the whole sum bearing ten per emit, interest — it was held not to be an usurious contract. — ( Turner v. Miller, 1 English's Rep. 463.)
" McFarland V. State Bank, 4 Ark. Rep., 410. ' Wood's Dig. Laws of Cal, p. 551; Edit. 1860. Coslj/ v. McDermit, Jan. T. 1857. {Cited.)
« Emi-ric V. Tarns.. 6 Gal, 155.
The original Statute against ugury, in Connecticut, is included in the laws of that State, published in 1718. It continued in force until 1838, when it was amended and substantially re-enacted. It is embodied in the revised Statutes of 1849. It limits the rate of interest to six per cent., and declares all contracts reserving more, utterly void -^ but there must be a corrupt agreement and intent to evade the statute, at the time of making the contract : a contract lawful in its inception, cannot be made usurious by any matter ex post facto.^ An agreement to pay com- pound-interest, is not usurious.^ In the year 1759, an act was passed by the Legis- lature of Delaware, reducing the Pennsylvania rate of interest, which had