
    [Pittsburg,
    October 1, 1824.]
    TURNER against CALVERT.
    A mortgage given to secure an usurious contract, is not void, but the mortgagee is entitled to recover the amount actually loaned, with legal interest.
    Weit of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county, in a. scire facias on a mortgage, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. The defendant below, Turner, pleaded the statute against usury, and set forth in his plea, the facts of the usurious contract; to which the plaintiff demurred. They were as follows:
    ON the the 18th of April, 1817, Calvert agreed to lend Turner three hundred and twenty dollars, for which the latter agreed to give him his bond for three hundred and fifty dollars, two hundred and fifty dollai’s payable on the 18th of October, 1819, and one hundred dollars payable on the 18th of October, 1820, with interest from the date of the bond; the thirty dollars beyond the amount of the loan, being a premium. Payment of the bond, it was agreed, should be secured by mortgage. The money was lent; and the bond and mortgage executed; and the money not being paid, this scire facias was issued upon the mortgage.
    The question submitted to the court was, Whether the mortgage was void as a security, or the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount actually loaned, with legal interest from the date of the bond ?
    The court gave judgment for the plaintiff, for the amount of the loan, with legal interest, and the defendant took a writ of error.
    
      Wallace, for the plaintiff in error,
    argued, that an usurious contract, being prohibited by the act of assembly, of March 2d, 1723, 1 Sm. L. 156, the court should, in accordance with well established principles, have refused its aid to enforce it. Com. on Cont. 28, (30) c. 3. Mitchell v. Smith, 1 Binn. 110. Maybin v. Coulon, 4 Dali. 298. Hibernia Turnpike Company v. Henderson, 8 Serg. & JRawle, 224. Park on Insurance, 232. Craig v. United States Insurance Company, 1 Peters, 417. St at. 12. Anne, c. 16. 4- •> X 
      
      Muff. 623. Wycoff v. Longhead, 2 Dali. 92. 2 Com. on Coni. 109. Hughes v. Union Insurance Company, 8 Wheat. 294.
    
      Selden, for .the defendant in error.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tilghman, C. J.

This was a scire facias on a mortgage. It is confessed, that the contract was usurious, and the question is, Whether the mortgage was void, or the plaintiff entitled to recover the amount of the sum loaned, with legal interest ? The case depends on the act of the 2d of March, 1723, (1 Sm. L. 156.) By the first section of this act, “No person shall, directly or indirectly, for any bonds or contracts, take, for the loan, or use of money, or any other commodities, above the value of six pounds for the forbearance of one hundred pounds, or the value thereof, for one year, and so proportionably for a greater or lesser sum.” And by the second section, provision is made, for recovering against any person who shall receive or take more than than six pounds per centum per annum, on any such bond or contract, the amount of the money or other thing lent. If we are to abide by the words of this law, there is no offence unless the money is received, neither is the contract declared to be void. And that it was not the intent of the act, to render the the contract totally void, may be presumed from this circumstance, that the first section appears to have been copied from the English statute of 12 Anne, c. 16.; but the subsequent part of that statute, by which the contract is declared void, is omitted in our law. There is great reason to think, that the ancient and uniform construction put upon the act of assembly, has been, that the contract was not void; for it was so expressly decided by this court, nearly forty years ago, in the case of Wycoff v. Longhead, (2 Dall. 92,) nor have we ever heard that decision questioned. It would be unwarrantable therefore in us, to unsettle the law, merely because a general principle has lately been established, that courts of justice will not give redress on any contract which has been made contrary to law. To say that this contract was so contrary to the act of assembly, as to make the recovery of the just debt and interest improper, is begging the question, and directly in opposition to the construction established by practice, decision, and general acquiescence. We are therefore of opinion, that the Court of Common Pleas were right in their judgment, that the sum actually loaned, witli legal interest, might be recovered.

Judgment affirmed.  