
    Case 15 — EQUITY
    October 28, 1880.
    Johnson v. Utley.
    APPEAL FROJI FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.
    1. Sec. 4, art. 2, chap. 60, title “Interest and Usury,” was repealed by the act of March 2,1878. It was in the nature of a penalty.
    '2. After the repeal of this section the obligee might recover legal interest upon his demand, although the obligation contained usury.
    JNO. L. SCOTT FOR APPELLANT.
    1. There can be no forfeiture in this case, for, although the obligation is for ten per centum interest, and is usurious, inasmuch as the 4th section of the usury law was repealed by the act of March, 1878, appellant is entitled to recover his debt, with eight per cent, interest.
    
      IRA JULIAN FOR APPELLEE.
    1. The amendment to the usury law, approved March 2, 1878, did not change or alter the General Statutes nor repeal section 4, which provides for a forfeiture of all interest if usury ho contained in the obligation.
    '2. It is obvious that the notes sued on (bearing ten per cent.) come within the provisions of section 4, because eight per cent, was the legal rate of interest when the notes were executed.
   JUDGE PRYOR

delivered the opinion op the court.

The forfeiture by the party loaning at a greater rate of interest than that provided'by the General Statutes and the subsequent amendments was in the nature of a penalty, and when the section authorizing the forfeiture was repealed by the act of March 2, 1878, there was nothing to prevent the obligee from recovering his debt with legal interest.

The legal rate of interest by the act of March 2, 1878, is 6 per cent., and the appellant was entitled to recover his debt with that rate of interest. For this reason alone the judgment is reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment accordingly.  