Allen

The plaintiff brought this action to recover an automobile which the defendant held under a conditional sale contract. The answer alleges that the defendant has paid the full purchase price of the automobile; that the contract provides for the payment of $220 in addition to the purchase price “as interest thereon, and as a fee and bonus” for making a loan to the defendant; and that the ‘1 agreement to pay said sum of $220 . . . was and is illegal and void under the provisions of the usury law of the State of California.” The plaintiff was given judgment for the recovery of the automobile and the defendant has appealed.

There is no substantial conflict in the evidence. It appears therefrom that the defendant purchased the automobile from Robertson & Robertson under a rough memorandum agreement for $1900, payments to be made at the rate of “$50 a month for 11 months, payment to be extended for another year if wanted.” A few days after this agreement was signed Kenneth Robertson, one of the sellers, told the defendant “he would like to assign this contract to the Weaver Co., but he said the Weaver Co. would not accept the contract . . . and he would have to make a new one” and said:…