450 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

this note, upon the payment of the principal sum loaned by him,
with legal interest, and his costs.

The act of 1845/ch. 352, has made a material change in the
law of this state upon the subject of usury. Prior to that act,
and under the law of 1704, ch. 69, securities tainted with usury
were utterly void, and if the party lending money upon usuri-
ous interest attempted to recover it by legal or equitable pro-
ceedings, he would be wholly defeated, on the fact of usury
being established. Under that act, however, if the debtor ap-
plied to chancery for relief, he would only be relieved, upon
paying the principal due, with the legal interest thereon. In
other words, he would be required to do equity, before he could
ask for equity, which only required he should be relieved from
the excessive interest.

But the act of 1845 extends this equitable principle, and pro-
vides, that in actions, both at law and in equity, bought by the
creditor upon the usurious instrument, the defendant, the debt-
or, shall be made to pay the principal debt, with interest there-
upon at the rate of six per cent. per annum; so that now usuri-
ous instruments are not, under any circumstances, avoided, but
are made valid securities in all courts, and no matter by whom
proceedings may be instituted upon them, to the extent of the
principal sum and six per cent. interest.

Can it be said, then, assuming, for the sake of the argument,
that the defendant, Lee, contracted with Baughman, Nicholson
and Cannon, for the payment of more than six per cent. inter-
est, that he is not a holder for value of this note. His contract
is not void, but is a good and valid contract, to the extent of
the sum loaned and six per cent. interest, and this is all he claims.
He says, and his answer is to be taken as true, being responsive
to the bill, that he gave value for this note paid at the time he re-
ceived it; and it is no answer to say that his contract with the
parties from whom he received it was usurious; because, if true,
that does not avoid the contract, which is a valid security to the
extent that he claims to recover upon it. He must, therefore, be
looked upon as a holder for value, and entitled as such to avail
himself of the note, taken without notice, and before it was due,
to the extent he claims.