
    ELAM F. THOMAS, Administrator of BLACKMUN RHODES, v. MORDECAI RHODES.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 272-273.)
    Brownsville,
    April Term, 1868.
    V USURY. Noto to imbecile usurious on its face enforced.
    Where a person of such imbecility of mind as to be incapable oí assenting to the illegal contract, loans money and takes a note usurious upon its face, equity will relieve him against the mistake, and decree the payment of the note with legal interest. [Eor usury generally, see Code, secs. 3493-3504, and notes; Ingraham v. Plunk, ante, p. 185. Mental imbecility of a contracting party. Keeble v. Cummins, 5 Hay., 43; King v. Cohorn, 6 Yer., 75; Johnson v. Chadwell, 8 Hum., 145; Craddock v. Cabiness, 1 Swan, 474; Gass -v. Mason, 4 Sneed, 497; Walton v. Northington, 5 Sneed, 282; Birdsong v. Birdsong, 2 Head, 289; Walker v. McCoy, 3 Head, 104; Tally v. Smith, 1 Cold., 300; Martin v. Martin, 1 Heis., 644, 647; Parrott v. Parrott, 1 Heis., 687; Mabry v. Church-well, 1 Lea, 416; Knox v. Haralson, 2 Tenn. Chy., 236.
    2. GOLD COIN. Decree for dollars and cents for amount borrowed, when.
    The simple fact that the money loaned was in gold will not warrant a decree on the note that the defendant shall pay the amount borrowed in gold coin. The decree will be rendered simply for the amount in dollars and cents. [Where a money contract is payable in gold coin, it should be enforced by a judgment or decree for coined gold dollars. Bronson v. Rodes, 74 U. S., 229 (L. ed., 19: 141); Butler v. Horwitz, 74 U. S., 258 (L. ed., 19: 149); Dewing v. Sears, 78 U. S., 379 (L. ed., 20: 189); Trebilcoek v. Wilson, 79 U. S., 687 (L. ed., 20: 460); Souder v. Pritchard, 84 U. S., 666 (L. ed., 21: 683); Gregory v. Morris, 96 U. S., 619 (L. ed., 24: 740:]
    On the 18th. of August, 1863, the defendant borrowed of complainant’s intestate, his brother, $305 in gold, and on the 1st of September, 1863, he borrowed from him $480 in gold; in both instances, he gave the intestate his note for the amount borrowed, payable on the 19th day of August, 1865, stipulating on the face of the notes: for the payment of interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum. The complainant, by bill, sought to be relieved from the effect of these illegal contracts, and have a decree for the amount loaned, etc., on the ground that the intestate was of such weakness of mind as to be unable to govern himself against imposition, or to resist importunity or undue influence, and not adequate to business he was about; and because tbe defendant was his brother and bad bis confidence and exerted great influence over bis weak mind, and obtained tbe money, and induced tbe intestate by fraud and undue influences.
   Smith, J.:

Tbe testimony does not, show any particular fraud or undue influence by tbe defendant in obtaining tbe money or making tbe notes, yet it discloses tbe fact that tbe intestate was of such imbecility of mind as to be incapable of assenting to tbe illegal contracts; and, therefore, tibe complainant is entitled to a decree for tbe money loaned, and legal interest thereon to tbe date of tbe decree.

The chancellor decreed that tbe defendant should pay the amount borrowed in gold coin. This was error. A. decree must be entered simply for tbe amount in dollars and cents.  