
    Lewisburg
    
      Porterfield v. Coiner.
    (Absent Brooke, J.)
    1847. July Term.
    
    
      P executed his bond to C for 500 dollars, payable in three years. The bond recites that it is not to bear interest for the three years, P having that day paid C 90 dollars, the interest thereon for three years, in advance. In an action on the bond by C against P, P pleads usury; and relies upon the recital in the bond to sustain his plea. Held : C may shew that the interest was paid, not by money, but in land at an agreed price per acre; and that such price was not the estimated value of the land in cash, but its estimated value in reference to the annual interest for three years, as the same should accrue upon the debt of 500 dollars. And, moreover, to corroborate such evidence, and repel the idea of a corrupt intent to take usurious interest, he may prove that the actual value of the land at the time of the contract was less than the agreed price, whether in cash, or on instalments of one, two and three years.
    
      Coiner brought an action of debt against Porterfield in the Circuit Court of Augusta county, on a bond of which the following is a copy:
    
      $> 500. Three years after date, for value received, I John Porterfield of Augusta county, Virginia, promise to pay Gasper Coiner, his heirs, executors, &c. the sum of five hundred dollars; for the true payment of which, I hereby bind myself, my heirs, executors and administrators firmly by these presents. The above sum is not to bear interest until due; the sum of ninety dollars being paid said Coiner on the same day this bond was executed, as the interest in advance. Witness my hand and seal this 3d day of March 1840.
    Signed,
    ' ******** John Porterfield, | seal, j ********
    The defendant appeared and filed a plea of usury; and on the trial of the cause, he relied upon the acknowledgment contained in the bond, that 90 dollars, three years interest thereon, was paid in advance. The plaintiff offered to introduce parol testimony to shew that the said 90 dollars was not paid in money, but was the nominal price of five acres of land sold by Porter-field to Coiner. To this testimony the defendant objected, but the Court overruled the objection, and he ex-eepted.
    The plaintiff then offered evidence to prove that the land which was sold to him at 18 dollars per acre, was not in fact worth more than 10 or 12 dollars, upon one, two and three years credit. To this evidence, the defendant objected, but the Court overruled the objection, and he again excepted.
    When all the testimony had been introduced on the trial, the defendant demurred to the evidence, and the plaintiff joined in the demurrer; and thereupon the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff. To this judgment, the defendant obtained a supersedeas from this Court.
    No question of law arises on the demurrer to evidence, and therefore it is not important to set it out.
    
      
      Stuart, for the appellant.
    
      Fultz, for the appellee.
   Baldwin, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court is of opinion, that it was competent for the appellee to prove the whole terms of the contract, upon which the appellant’s obligation was founded, for the purpose of shewing that the payment of the interest in advance in said obligation mentioned was not to be made in money, but by a sale of five acres of land at the agreed price of eighteen dollars per acre ; and that such price was not the estimated value of said land in cash, but its estimated value in reference to the annual interest for three years, as the same should accrue, upon the principal debt of 500 dollars : and that it was moreover competent for the appellee, in connection with such evidence, in order to corroborate the same, and repel the idea of a corrupt intent to exact for the loan or forbearance of said principal money more than the value of six dollars per centum per annum, to prove that the actual value of said land at the time of said contract was less than eighteen dollars per acre, whether in cash or in instalments of one, two and three jrnars.

And the Court is further of opinion, that the facts above mentioned are fairly deducible from the evidence stated in the appellant’s demurrer thereto: and consequently that the said contract, and the said obligation executed in pursuance thereof, were not usurious.

It is therefore considered by the Court that there is no error in the said judgment of the said Circuit Court : and that the same be affirmed ; and that the defendant in error recover against the plaintiff in error his costs by him about his defence in this Court expended.  