1851. July Term. Newbrough V. Walker. one hundred dollars damages, this court would not have disturbed the verdict. But there is nothing in the case which warrants a verdict for greater damages than one hundred dollars. The evidence of a witness that during the first year of the lease the plaintiff could have cleared three or four hundred dollars was necessarily speculative and conjectural, and furnished no legitimate basis on which to estimate the damages. It is therefore considered by the court that the judgment of the Circuit court be reversed and annulled, with costs to the plaintiff in error; that the verdict of the jurors be set aside; and that the cause be remanded to the Circuit court for a new trial to be had therein. 1851. July Term. Lewisburg. LYLE. OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF OHIO COUNTY. (Absent Cabell, P.) August 14th. The County court made an order that the putative father of a bastard child, the mother of which was a married woman who had been deserted by her husband, should pay to the overseers of the poor a certain sum annually for six years commencing from the birth of the child, if it should live so long. And this held to be proper. This was a proceeding in the County.court of Ohio county, by the overseers of the poor of that county against James Lyle, for the purpose of charging him with the support of a bastard child. It appeared from the evidence that the mother of the bastard child was a married woman. She had been married in March 1843, but her husband left her in the fall of that year and had not returned. Since that time she had lived with her father; and the child was born in October 1847. It appeared that the mother was entitled to an interest worth about 200 dollars in a small tract of land. This proceeding was commenced on the 29th of April 1848. The case came on to be heard before the County court at the September term of that year, when the court made an order that the defendant Lyle be charged with the annual payment of 25 dollars to the overseers of the poor of the county, for the space of six years from the birth of said child, to wit: for six years from the 18th day of October 1847, if the child shall live so long. Lyle obtained a supersedeas to this judgment from the judge of the Circuit court of Ohio county, but when the case came on to be heard in that court the judgment of the County court was affirmed; whereupon he applied to this court for a supersedeas, which was awarded. Price, for the appellant, and Jacob, for the appellees, submitted the case. BY THE COURT: The judgment is affirmed. 1851. July Termi. Jyle V. Overseers of the Poor of Ohio county. 1851. July Term. Lewisburg. BELL & al. v. CALHOUN. (Absent Cabell, P.) August 16th. 1. In December 1842 C assigned to B a bond on E, who was in doubtful circumstances, for 529 dollars and 6 cents, due on 26th October 1838, and subject to a credit of 15 dollars paid 1st October 1842; for which B gave him 494 dollars and 25 cents; and C at the same time executed a deed of trust on property with condition that if the bond with its interest was not paid in twelve months, the trustee should sell and pay the amount to B. This was usurious. 2. On a bill to enjoin a sale under the deed of trust, the plaintiff says he has proof and does not wish a discovery, but that the sale may be enjoined until the validity of the deed can be tried at law. Upon an issue directed by the court, the jury find the usury; and that the usurious premium is the difference between the sum advanced by B to C and the bond with interest to that time, subject to the credit for 15 dollars. HELD: That the proper relief is, not to perpetuate the injunction for the whole amount of the bond and its interest due, but only for the amount of the usurious premium. In March 1844 George A. Calhoun applied to the judge of the Circuit court of Augusta county for an injunction to restrain a sale of slaves under a deed of trust. In his bill he alleged, in substance, that in December 1842 he ascertained that he would be compelled to raise a sum of money of over four hundred dollars by the first or second of January 1843. That he finally made an arrangement with Samuel H. Bell and William Crawford, whereby he assigned to them a bond which he held on John Edmondson for 529 dollars and 6 cents, due on the 26th of October 1838, subject to a credit of 15 dollars, paid the 1st of October 1842, for which he received the sum of 494 dollars and 25 cents; and he at the same time, in pursuance of the agreement between them, executed a deed of trust, a copy of which was exhibited with the bill, whereby he conveyed to Littleton Waddell four slaves, upon trust, that if within twelve months from that date the bond so assigned, with interest, should not be paid to said Bell and Crawford, then the trustee should sell the slaves at public auction for cash, and pay the whole amount of said bond to Bell and Crawford. He charged that this arrangement was not a sale of the bond, but a usurious agreement, whereby Bell and Crawford agreed to lend to the complainant 494 dollars 25 cents for twelve months, for which he was to pay the full amount of Edmondson's bond, amounting to about 693 dollars 43 cents, something over thirty-three per cent. The bill as originally prepared, after making Waddell, Bell and Crawford parties, called upon them to answer the bill upon oath, and asked that they might be restrained from selling under the deed of trust; that the deed might be declared usurious and void; or, if not, that the plaintiff might at least be relieved from the payment of all over the sum with its interest which he had received. Afterwards, but before the bill was filed, a clause was added by which the complainant alleged that he could prove all the allegations of the bill going to establish the usury charged therein, and that he did not require a discovery of the usury from the defendants by their answers; and he asked for an injunction to restrain the sale of the trust property until the validity of the deed could be tried at law. The injunction was granted. The defendants Bell and Crawford answered the bill. They alleged that Edmondson was insolvent at the time, and the bond referred to in the bill was secured by a deed of trust; but there were so many other debts secured by the same deed, having priority to this, that it 1851. July Term. Bell & al. V. Calhoun. 1851. July Term. Bell & al. V. was very doubtful whether it would be paid. That the agreement between the complainant and themselves was, that he should assign the bond to them at a discount of Calhoun twenty-five per cent.; and secure them for the money they should advance to him by a deed of trust on negroes. That accordingly, on the same day, the defendant Waddell, at the instance and under the directions of the complainant, prepared the trust deed; and on the same day the bond was assigned to them, and they advanced to the complainant the sum of 494 dollars 25 cents. They aver that their understanding of the contract at the time, and ever since, has been, that they had a right to the whole amount of the bond on Edmondson, if they could collect it of him. Of this, however, they had considerable doubt; and if they failed, then that they had a right to look to the trust deed executed by the complainant, as a security for the money actually advanced to him, with the legal interest accruing thereon. And they aver that they never have claimed or demanded under said deed of trust more than the said sum of 494 dollars 25 cents, with legal interest thereon. The deed of trust recites that its object is to secure to Bell and Crawford the full payment of the bond assigned, with interest thereon; and it provides that if it is not paid in twelve months, the trustee shall, at the request of Bell and Crawford, or their assigns, sell for cash so much of the trust property as may be necessary to make the amount which may be then due upon said bond, which amount he shall pay over to those entitled. At the June term 1844 the cause came on to be heard on a motion by the defendant to dissolve the injunction; whereupon the court overruled the motion, and ordered that an issue be made up between the parties and tried at the bar of that court, before a jury, to ascertain whether the assignment of the bond of Ed |