
    William S. Miller & Co. v. Z. Reid, et al.
    
    A creditor compounded with his debtor to receive his bond, with sureties, for part of the debt, in satisfaction of the whole; but, by a private arrangement with the debtor, obtained his individual bond for a further portion of the debt: Held, that although the latter bond might be void as a fraud upon the sureties, it did not invalidate the former bond for usury.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Earle, at Union, Spring Term, 1831.
    Debt on bond for the payment of four thousand four hundred and forty-one dollars. Plea of usury, setting forth the following facts. That Reid, the principal, was indebted to the plaintiffs by judgment, in the sum of seven thousand four hundred and forty-one dollars; and that the plaintiffs proposed to receive the notes of various persons to the amount of two thousand dollars, and the bond now in suit, entered into by Reid, and the other defendants as his sureties, in full satisfaction of the judgment. That the proposal was accepted, the notes delivered, and the bond executed accordingly: But that the plaintiff Miller, by a separate and private 'arrangement with Reid, unknown to the sureties, obtained from him his individual bond for live hundred dollars, for the forbearance of the debt of four thousand four hundred and forty-one dollars. To this plea the plaintiffs demurred, and defendants joined in demurrer.
    The presiding Judge was of opinion, that the bond for five hundred dollars did not vitiate the bond now in suit. It was á separate, distinct, and independent agreement, entered into by one only of the obligors; the others were not parties to it, and therefore it could not constitute part of their contract, nor taint it with usury. A bond or other contract, in itself good, cannot be avoided by a separate or subsequent agreement to receive more than legal interest. Ballard v. Oddey, 2 Mod. 307. Gray v. Fowler, 1 H. Bl. 462. Ord on Usury, 100-104. The agreement here alleged to be usurious, was at least separate from the contract to accept the bonds and notes in discharge of the judgment; and from the plea it would seem to have been subsequent also. It may itself be void, but it does not invalidate the bond now in suit. Judgment for plaintiffs. The defendants now moved to reverse the judgment.
   Harper, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We concur with the presiding Judge. The transaction had nc" relation to usury. Whether the bond taken privately of Reid may not be void as being a fraud on his friends, who were induced by the composition made with him, to become his sureties, is a different question, which is not before us for decision.

Motion refused.  