t3& FeDERAIi bepobteb. �of $11,000, executed by the defendant to the complainant at Emmetsburgh, lowa, on, the first day of November, 1875, payable, with interest at 10 per cent, semi-annually, on the eighteenth day of Novemberj'lSSO, with a stipulation that if default sho'uld be made in the payment of interest, the whole ffliotdd, at the election of the iolder, become due, etc. It a^pears that Mrs. Maggie P. Davison, of Cook county, Illi- nois, placed iii the hands of one A. C. Burnham, also liting in that state, the sum of $10,000, authorizing him to loan the same for. ber on real e^tate security. Said Burnhaiii tras a member of the firm> of Burnham, Ormsby & Co., bankersjof Emmetsburgh, lOT^a. Asa C. Call, the defendant, had applied.to that finn to obtain a loan for him. Shortly after the application was made, Call met A. C. Burnham in lowa, and they entered upon a negotiatiou for the loan. The resuit was that Call gave his note to Barnham for $10,000, with semi-annual iuterest notes of $500 each, and received through the house of Burnham, Ormsby & Co. the sum of $8,000, that firm retaining $2,000 as commissions ont of the $10,000. The moniey loaned belonged to Mrs. J)a vison, but that fact was not disclosed to Mr. Call, and the notes were taken in the name of A. C. Burnham. The notes remained in the custody of A. C. Burnham, subjeot to the control of Mrs. Davison, and were recognized by Burnham as her property.:: She received the interest, and was wholly ignorant of the fact that Mr. Call received any less sum than $10,000. She gave no authority to Burnham to loan the money at a greatei rate of interest than 10 per cent, per annum, or to take any bonus out of the sum loaned. She received no benefit from the usury, and had no knowledge whatever of it. �The plaintiff, Henry H. Palmer, a capitalist residing in New Jersey, purchased the said $10,000 note, with five coupon notes attached, from A. C Burnham, who indorsed it to him in September, 1873, paying for the same the full face value of $10,000 in cash. The interest had been paid at matui-ity up to the time of the purchase, and the plaintiff had no notice of the usury in the original loan on which the ��� �
