740 FEDERAL REPORTSB. �England and this country. Tyler on Usury, 156-172; Dag- nel V. Wigley, 11 East, 43 ; Salariee v. Melville, 7 Barn. & Cress. 427; Coster v. Dilwortk, 8 Cow. 299; Condit \. Bald- win,.21 N. T. 219; Smith y. Marvin, 27 N. Y. 137; B«K v. Day, 32 N. Y. 165; Baa;«er v, Buck, 10 Vt. 548; Muir v. Newark Ins. Co. 16 N. J. Eq. 537; Canover v. Fan Mater,, 18 N. J. Bq. 486; Rogers v. Buckingham, 33 Conn. 81; Hopkins v. Bafcer, 2 P. H. (Va.) 110 ; Gofeey v. Knapp, 44 lowa, 32; ili^/Wts v. Ault, 45 lowa, 46; the result summed up in 17 Alb. La^ Jour. 116; Barret v. Snowden, 5 Wend. 181. �I have the greatest confidence- in the correctness and sta- bility of this rule from the fact that it resta upon solid foun- dations of reason and justice. The lender employs an agent to loan his money. He gives the agent no authority to vio- late the law. He has no knowledge of the fact that usurious interest is extorted. He has no intent to receive, and does not receive, more than the law allows. He derives no benefit from the illegal transaction. But the agent and borrower, without the knowledge, consent, or authority of the lender, enters into an illegal contract for the payment of excessive interest. The borrower and agent are the guilty parties. They knowingly violate the law. They are particeps criminis, though:,it may be in une quai degrees. They knowingly put the lender's money in jeopardy without the least pecuniary advantage to him. It is the lender who is prejudiced and injured by such a transaction. Would it not be most unjust to inflict the pecuniary loss upon the lender, who is without fault and free from any illegal intention, in favor of a party who has knowingly and wilfully participated in the violation of the law? Would it be consistent with sound morality so to do ? What right has the borrower to assume or to believe that the lender's agent is authorized by his principal to vio- late the law by the taking of usurious interest ? The lender's agent is either a special or a general agent. If he is spe- cially empowered to negotiate the particular loan and no other, it is the legal duty of the borrower to look to the special authority, and the principal is not bound beyond the special ��� �
