BBIDQES V. SHBLCON. 39 �Btill, what the defendants were to do in furnishing money a-nd materials was to be done for the orator, and to be paid for by money drawn in bis name, and if payment from that source should, for any cause not attributable to the defend- ants, fail, upon common principles underlying the whole transaction the orator would be liable as upon an implied promise for what the defendants had done for him. It was upon this ground, that all was done for the orator upon such security as the powers of attorney and the retention of title to the property afforded, that the orator was made to bear the Almaretta loss. But, by attending carefully to what the master says about the item of $3,520.32 for indorsing paper and meeting liabilities for the orator, and the item of $5,000 for services of Charles Sheldon, as well as what he says about the item of interest specifically, it is plain that he regarded the extra 3 per cent, as a compensation to that estent for many things to be done by the defendants for which no com- pensation was otherwise provided. As to the latter, he finds expressly that if what Sheldon did was within the prerogative and scope of the contract, compensation therefor is provided in the 9 per cent. ; and elsewhere, under the item of over- payment of Jacobs, he finds that the course taken by the defendants involving these services was adopted in good faith, to avoid danger of loss to both parties. In Coclde v. Flack, 93 U. S. 344, 10 per cent, interest was stipulated for on money advances to move products to be sold by ono party or the other, on commission to be paid to the party making the advances. It was held that the contract was not necessarily usurious on its face, and still might be a mere cover for usury on the advances, and that it was properly submitted to the jury to find what its real character was. So, here, this con- tract is not necessarily usurious. The extra 3 per cent, may be a cover for usury, and may be for just compensation. To determine which it is, involves a question of fact. The mas- ter, after finding as stated, has allowed the 9 per cent., and no exception has been taken to this finding. His finding, under these circumstances, must be taken as conclusive. The defendants were to pay over to the orator what might ��� �
