
    Foltz against Mey.
    orWnaiiyfah-6 ami not usu-nous, no in-tei-mediate sac/ion*5 shall hands ofasulf-ft older1 not privy to such usurious business.
    
    THIS was an action by the plaintiff, as indorsee of a promissory note, against the defendant, as drawer. The note was drawn by the defendant, in favour of Mr. Khanes, who indorsed it, in order to lodge it in the bank; and was afterwards entrusted to the nephew of the defendant, to de-Pos^ the South-Carolina Bank for discount. This, nephew, instead of obeying his uncles orders, negotiated . . ° the note with one Bart, at a discount of five per cent, per month, in order to raise money on it for his own account,, It afterwards came into the hands of the plaintiff, Foltz, for a valuable consideration; against whom nothing usurious was alleged.
    
      Pinckney and Rutledge endeavoured to carry back the usury to the original making of the note by Mey, and con» tended, that if there was the remotest idea of raising money on it upon the above terms, it would make it usurious ; and, if so, then it would be affected in the hands of an innocent holder, who might even know nothing of the usury. 1 Espo 40. 42. Ibid. 259. 2 Burn, it? Bast, 230. Cowp. 970. isic.
    
      Pringle, contra,
    contended, that although in the transaction between the defendant’s nephew and Hart, the transaction was obviously usurious ; yet, if the note was not drawn by the defendant for that purpose, it was good and valid in its creation. In this case it had been clearly proved,' that the note was drawn and indorsed for the express purpose of being lodged in the bank, ¡o raise money at the usual bank interest ; therefore, fair in its origin. That no after breach of confidence, or improper conduct in the nephew, ought to affect it in the hands of an innocent holder for a valuable consideration, unless a knowledge of the intermediate usurious transaction could be attached to him.
   Waties, J.

The note in this case appears to be fair in its creation or making; made for a legal purpose in the course of trade, and came fairly in the course of trade into the hands of the plaintiff. No intermediate contingencies or usurious transactions between other persons, through whose hands it may have passed, can affect it in the hands of an innocent indorsee. Between him and the drawer it clearly stands unimpeached.

Bay, J.

concurred, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.  