*38 rnnmnan nnnoarsn.
Foster as J. HL Foster &“Co.,-eiive of them being for $2,000 each, pay-
table in one, two, three, four, and frve years from date, with interest at
<8 per centum per annum,iand the sixthone for $6,000; the amount of
the. overdue interest on the nrstiiveinotes, payable in one year from date,
without interest. These notes are also in evidence, and it appears from
, .the testimony of Crawford that the exchange was made later than July
.20th, andrtheinotes were antedated, so as to make the old ones expire
with theeven year. They also testify that at the date of the transfer the
second seriesof notes were due and altogether unpaid, and were given
· upito Foster in consideration ofthe conveyance to William Crawford of
the brick block in question. `William Crawfordalso testifies to the same
.eH`ect, so far as he knows. He says the first series of notes was unpaid
when his brother John got them from him for the purpose of making
the exchange, and that the second series was unpaid when, at his
.brother’s suggestion, he gave them to himfor the purpose of purchasing
the property then conveyed to him by Foster. r
, This isan improbable statement in all its essential features, though it
maybe true. Men do not usually allow debts of this character to run
on for years without payment of the principal and comparatively little
interest. The principal reason for changing the notes, that the legal rate
of interest had in the mean time (October 25, 1880) been reduced to 8
per centum, is not satisfactory or convincing. Notwithstanding the
change in the law, parties might still contract for 10 per centum, and
contracts made before the change were not affected by it. Hill’s Code
1887, §§ 3587, 3592. The exchange was not made until nearly three
years after the change in the law, which did not aH'ect the notes in any
way, and could not reasonably have been the cause of the exchange. But
if the creditor thought 8 per centum was as much as the debtor ought to
r pay under the circumstances, there was nothing to prevent reducing it
either by new notes or amemorandum on the old ones, without any ref-
erence to. the change in thelaw, or what the law might allow him to take.
V On September 17, 1881, William Crawford made oath before the as-
sessor of Linn county, in writing, that the notes owned by him and lia-
ble to taxation in the state amounted in value to only $5,000. John A.
Crawford. makes the same explanation of this matter that he did concern-
ing the.omission to return his own Foster notes for taxation,-—that Fos~
ter was not to deduct the value of them from his assessment. But Fos·
` ter says he did not make the deduction because Crawford did not charge
him interest on the interest in arrear. .
After the mortgage tax law of 1882 went into effect, in July, 1883,
Mr. C. 'H. Stewart, the county clerk of Linn county, in looking over the
record. of mortgages for the purpose of making an abstract thereof for
the assessor, found a mortgage of many years’ standing from Foster to
William Crawford on the mill property in question, given to secure the
payment of a sum which then amounted, principal and interest, to about
$25,000. He naturally supposed from thercircumstances that it had
been satisfied, and at once wrote to Mr. William Crawford to call and
makethe proper credits or cancellation, or it would be returned to the
. t