114 FEDERAL REPORTER, �other sources as will beat promote the interests of ail con- cerned; and, carrying out the objecta of said corporation, may loan the money of the corporation at a percentage not exceeding 20 per cent, per annum." It is clear that the Company was organized for the purpose of engaging in the business of insuring the lives of individuals and of loaning money, and it does not appear, either from the charter or the evidence, that the loaning of money was merely incidental to the business of insurance. It is pretty evident, I think, that the Company looked to the income to be derived from invest- ments and loans as the chief source of its profits; but, how- ever this may be, it is safe to assume that loaning money was one of the primary objecta for which the company was created. �The defendant Eobert Kittle applied to the plaintiff for a loan of money. He did not desire, and did not apply for, a policy of insurance upon his life. He was informed in sub- stance that the company was loaning money, and would loan him $2,500 upon satisfactory security, provided he would take from plaintiff a policy of insurance upon his own life or that of some other person for $5,000, and pay the premiums, amounting to about $300 per annum. Whethor more than the legal rate of interest bas been contracted for is a question of faet to be collected from the whole of the transaction as it passed between the parties. We are to inquire whether there was an agreement, device or shift to reserve or take more than the law permits. It is not usual to express an usurious contract upon the face of a written agreement. "The charge of uaury," says Mr. Tyler, "in most instances attaches topre- tended cases of exchange of credits or commodities, or when a profit is realized for something besides the use of the money loaned or the debt forborne." Tyler on Usury, 105. We must, therefore, inquire whether, considering the whole transaction, there bas been a successful effort on the part of the plaintiff to obtain, under color of the insurance transaction, exorbitant and unlawful gain for the use or forbearance of the money loaned to defendant Eobert Kittle. Were these two separate ����
