■188 ���FEDERAL REPORTER. ���For this reason the account as rendered to defendant con- tained the usual charge of the telegraph company for a dis- patch of ten words or lesa, viz., 75 cents, and while the charge ■was false in fact it would appear to the defendant to be true 80 long as he remained ignorant of the broker's habit of charging. Until this became known to him there was noth- ing on the face of the account calling for objection by him. As to usage, see Renner v. Bank of ColumUa, 9 Wheat. 581 ; Bowling v. Harrison, 6 How. 2e8 ; Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 W. & M. 23. �The only other portion of the account objected to by the defendant consista of the varions charges for interest, at the rate of 2 per cent, per month, which he asserts are illegal, because no agreement in writing has ever been made to pay that rate. �The plaintiff claims that ail items of interest accruing prior to August 1, 1875, are included in a number of accounts stated, contained in a book in evidence called a "broker's pass-book;" and that since, under the law of this state, there is nothing illegal in a verbal agreement to pay interest at the rate charged, an account stated may lawfuUy be eettled by the parties, with items of interest at that rate entering into the balance struck and agreed to. A statute of Nevada (Comp. Laws, § 32) provides that "when there is no express contract in writing, fixing a different rate of interest, interest shall be allowed at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum for ail moneys. * * * Parties may agree in writing for the pay- ment of any rate of interest whatever on money due, or to become due." After judgment, the original claim bears inter- est at the contract rate. There is nothing anywhere in the statute prohibiting persons from paying or reeeiving any rate of interest they choose. The only effect of the law is to pre- vent a recovery by suit of more than 10 per cent, per annum when there is no agreement in writing. Properly speaking, 2 per cent, per month is not an illegal rate of interest in Nevada. If parties see fit to contract in writing, any rate so fixed can be recovered; but if the agreement is not reduced to writing, they cannot have the aid of the courts in enforc- ����
