GWYN VS. LEE. 451

It may be, that since the repeal of the 3d section of the act
of 1704, ch. 69, which inflicts a forfeiture for usury, a defend-
ant cannot excuse himself from answering the charge of usury,
when the justice of the case requires him to answer. But when,
as in this case, the defendant claims no more than his principal
and legal interest, to which, under the act of 1845, ch. 352, he
is entitled, whether he has contracted for the payment of usuri-
ous interest or not, there would seem to be no motive for com-
pelling him to answer, if he declines voluntarily to do so. Oui
bono force him to answer a charge which can have no influence
upon the judgment of the court or the rights of the parties.

It is also objected by the complainants, that the defendant
has not produced his accounts with Baughman, Nicholson and
Cannon, for the last three years prior to the time of filing this
bill; nor stated the amount of excessive interest paid, or sup-
posed to have been paid, by them to him, within that period.

But the answer does give a statement of the only two trans-
actions he has with those parties at this time; and I cannot
see how the complainants can found an equity upon transac-
tions passed and settled. The legality, or the illegality, of
former dealings between those parties, which have been settled
between themselves, can have nothing to do with the merits of
this particular transaction, and are not, therefore, proper sub-
jects of inquiry.

The fate of this controversy must depend upon the consider-
ations which have been adverted to, and which affect it as an
independent transaction; and it is to be determined without
reference to anterior dealings with which it has no connexion.

My opinion, therefore, is, that the equity upon which the in-
junction was granted has been removed by the answer, and it
must, therefore, be dissolved.

[The order in this case was affirmed, on appeal to the Court
of Appeals. ]