The case concerned whether a 1893 contract between the appellee and the appellant's intestate (Bode) was usurious, with the appellant arguing it was a loan at an illegal interest rate and the appellee maintaining it created a partnership in Bode's extract business. The court reviewed the full record of correspondence and dealings, beginning in 1891, and determined that the arrangement involved the appellee providing capital for a share of profits with a guaranteed minimum return rather than a loan repayable at all events. It held that the true character of the transaction, as shown by the evidence including signed agreements and profit-based settlements, established a partnership and not a device to evade usury laws. The court therefore concluded that the defense of usury was unavailable and affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment.

business & regulatory