VARY V. NORTON. 809 �rately that the consideration of the note is in part usurious ; that payments of interest have been usurious, and that he is the surety of Norton, and bas been discharged from liability by the time of payment having been extended by plaintiff without his knowledge or consent. Norton and Lee join in their defence, which is the same in substance as set up by King. The note was made by ail the defendants, at Lowell, in this state, March 27, 1871, by -which they jointlyand sev- erally promised to pay to William Vary or order, five years after date, $2,000, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum, payable semi-annually. Ail the interest that matured prier to September 14, 1873, was paid to the payee; at or Boon after which date the note passed to plaintiff, and he, as holder thereof, bas since received the interest to March 27, 1876. Ail payments of interest have been at the rate of 10 per cent, on the face of the note. �Defendant Norton lias, since this suit was commenced, made two payments — one of $200, June 19th, and the same amount October 8, 1877. The consideration of the note was only $1,790, money loaned to ail the defendants, while $210 included in the note was usury, to which extent the consid- eration fails. Plaintiff is chargeable with notice of ail the facts. A computation based upon the actual consideration of the note, with interest at 10 per cent, thereon, less payments made by way of interest, shows that the amount remaining unpaid at the date of this opinion is $1,994.54, On the seventeenth of November, 1873, after the note came into the hands of plaintiff, defendant Norton agreed, for a valuable consideration, with defendants Lee and King, to pay the note. Of this arrangement the plaintiff had seasonable notice. On the fourth of April, 1876, plaintiff and defendant Norton made an agreement by which Norton paid to plaintiff $460^ which met ail interest due on the face of the note to that time, the taxable costs of a suit pending against ail the de- fendants on the note, and an excess of about $15. This lat-^ ter sum was paid and received as consideration for the agree- ment of plaintiff then made with Norton to extend the time 'or the payment of the principal sum to March 27, 1877, ��� �
