by John Marshall Harlan

Summary

by John Marshall Harlan Fowler v. Equitable Trust Company…

Such is the uniform construction of the statute, which, in the case of usury in a loan, forfeits the whole of the interest contracted to be received, and permits a recovery only for the principal sum due. As there is no interest really due if the transaction be usurious,-the right to recover interest being forfeited at the moment the contract of loan is consummated,-whatever the borrower pays on account of the loan must go as credit on the principal sum; otherwise, the usurer would get the benefit of his illegal contract, and the statute be rendered inoperative.
Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan Fowler v. Equitable Trust Company…

It is not the case simply of a borrower employing a broker,-who has no regular or established connection with the lender as agent, and no arrangement with the lender in respect to compensation for his services,-to effect a loan, and agreeing to pay him commissions. With agreements of the latter kind the courts have no concern, and they are not permitted to affect the rights of the lender where he does nothing more than lend his money at such rate of interest as the statute permits. Such is the rule in Illinois.
Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan Fowler v. Equitable Trust Company…

The contract of loan in question having been made between a citizen of Illinois and a corporation of another state, and the bonds having been executed in Illinois, and secured by mortgage upon real estate there situated, the defense of usury, in a court of the United States sitting in and administering the laws of Illinois, cannot be sustained upon the ground simply that the rate of interest exacted or reserved was in excess of that allowed by the law of the state in which the bonds are made payable.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature