I. The statutes of Mississippi regulating interest charges may not be evaded by schemes or devices; and the courts of Mississippi will look through form to substance in enforcing the laws against usury. Alt v. Bailey, 211 Miss. 547, 52 So.2d 283; Cortner v. Bennett (Miss.), 92 So.2d 559; Gully v. Gulf Coast Industrial Loan Co., 168 Miss. 768, 151 So. 754; Kennedy v. Porter, 176 Miss. 742, 170 So. 286; Richardson v. Cortner, 232 Miss. 885, 100 So.2d 854; Sec. 36, Code 1942; 55 Am. Jur., Secs. 3, 14 pp. 324, 332; 27 R.C.L. 211. II. Where money loaned is repayable in all events together with legal interest then it is usurious for the lender to require additional compensation or advantage; and the agreement made at bar and the excessive payments received thereunder by defendant were palpably usurious.

Otherwise, the trustee is liable only in his representative capacity. Restatement (Second) of Trusts §§ 261, 265 (1959); Richardson v. Cortner, 232 Miss. 885, 105 So.2d 456, 456 (1958) ("When a party brings . . . a suit in his name in such representative capacity (trustee in a chattel deed of trust), he is individually liable for costs, insofar as the opposite party and the officers of the court are concerned.").See Restatement (Second) of Trusts §§ 265 cmt. a, 271A cmt. a (1959) (both noting "the modern trend" limiting a trustee's personal liability); see generally, e.g., George Gleason Bogart et al., The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 732(describing the evolution from the "Orthodox Common Law Rule — No Direct Representative Liability" to the "Statutory Trend Toward Direct Representative Liability").

Wilson Industries, Inc. v. Newton Bank, 245 So.2d 27, 31 (Miss. 1971); Ready-Mix Concrete Concrete Products Co. v. Perry, 239 Miss. 329, 123 So.2d 241, 246 (1960); Richardson v. Cortner, 232 Miss. 885, 100 So.2d 854, 856-57 (1958); Bell v. Tindall, 215 Miss. 343, 60 So.2d 801, 803 (1952); Alt v. Bailey, 211 Miss. 547, 52 So.2d 283, 286 (Miss. 1951).

In a later case, we held that "the public policy of this state condemns usury. . . . [C]ourts will look to and construe the transaction by its substance and effect, rather than its form, and will permit no scheme or device, however ingenious, to hide the face of usury." Richardson v. Cortner, 232 Miss. 885, 891, 100 So.2d 854, 857 (1958). Accord, Kennedy v. Porter, 176 Miss. 742, 748, 170 So. 286, 287 (1936).

See Fairley v. State, 343 So.2d 483 (Miss. 1977); Miss. Power Light Co. v. Town of Coldwater, 234 Miss. 615, 106 So.2d 375 (1958), on suggestion of error, 234 Miss. 645, 112 So.2d 222 (1959); Richardson v. Cortner, 232 Miss. 885, 100 So.2d 855 (1958); Home Ins. Co. v. Watts, 229 Miss. 735, 91 So.2d 722 (1957), on suggestion of error, 229 Miss. 751, 93 So.2d 848 (1957); Ford v. City of Pascagoula, 228 Miss. 265, 87 So.2d 558 (1956); Watkins v. Taylor, 216 Miss. 822, 63 So.2d 225 (1953), on motion to correct judgment, 216 Miss. 836, 65 So.2d 461 (1953). Under the authority of Rule 33, we are impelled to suspend the operation of Rule 47 in this case; to do otherwise would result in manifest injustice.

of Virginia, 122 N.C. 338(1), 30 S.E. 341; Cochran v. State (Ala.), 119 So.2d 339; Cockle v. Flack, 93 U.S. 344, 23 L.Ed. 949; Davis Loan Co. v. Blanchard, 14 La. App. 671, 129 So. 413, 130 So. 472; Fishburne v. Hartsfield Loan Savings Co., 38 Ga. App. 784, 145 S.E. 495; General Contract Corp. v. Bailey, 218 Miss. 484, 67 So.2d 485; Home Finance Co. v. Padgett (La. App.), 54 So.2d 813; In Re Graham (D.C.) 22 F. Supp. 233; Jernigan v. Loid Rainwater Co., 196 Ark. 251, 117 S.W.2d 18; Knight v. State, 64 Ga. App. 693, 14 S.E.2d 225; McDaniel v. Bank of Bethlehem, 22 Ga. App. 223, 95 S.E. 724; Miller v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 118 N.C. 612, 24 S.E. 484, 54 Am. St. Rep. 741; Missouri, Kansas Texas Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 172 U.S. 351, 43 L.Ed. 474, 19 S.Ct. 179; Nash d.b.a. Delta Finance Co. v. State of Alabama, 123 So.2d 24, 83 A.L.R. 2d 842; People v. Coleman, 337 Mich. 247, 59 N.W.2d 276; Peoples Bank v. Mayo, 61 Ga. App. 877, 8 S.E.2d 405; Pope v. Marshall, 78 Ga. 635, 4 S.E. 116; Richardson v. Cortner, 232 Miss. 885, 110 So.2d 854; Southern Loan Investment Co. v. State, 68 Ga. App. 75, 22 S.E.2d 108; Tribble v. State, 89 Ga. App. 593, 80 S.E.2d 711. Watkins Eager, Elizabeth Hulen, George F. Woodliff, Jackson, for appellee.

Pyles Tucker, Jackson, for appellant. I. The Chancery Court erred in holding that the State Tax Collector failed to comply with statutes in instituting action against Nash. Adam v. Lamb-Fish Lumber Co., 104 Miss. 48, 61 So. 6; Adam v. People's Bank of Biloxi, 108 Miss. 346, 66 So. 407; Adams v. Clarke, 80 Miss. 134, 31 So. 216; Alt v. Bailey, 211 Miss. 547, 52 So.2d 283; Bailey v. Emmich Bros., 204 Miss. 666, 37 So.2d 797; Craig v. Gulf, M. O.R. Co., 196 Miss. 172, 16 So.2d 760; Craig v. J.A. Jones Construction Co., Inc., 195 Miss. 378, 15 So.2d 45; Dixie Brokerage Co. v. Bailey, 212 Miss. 726, 55 So.2d 438; General Contract Corp. v. Bailey, 218 Miss. 484, 67 So.2d 485; Richardson v. Cortner, 232 Miss. 885, 100 So.2d 854; Sinclair v. Bailey (Miss.), 55 So.2d 175. II. The Chancery Court erred in holding that appellant was not liable for privilege tax imposed by Code Section 9696-134.

Lee, Moore Countiss, Pyles Tucker, Creekmore Beacham, Jackson, for appellants. I. Aetna was a money-lender either for itself individually, or as the agent of All-State, and the elaborate plan worked out between Aetna and All-State for the ostensible purpose of operating a legitimate brokerage and a legitimate lending business in the State of Mississippi, was only a scheme or device to evade the usury laws of the State. Alt v. Bailey, 211 Miss. 547, 52 So.2d 283; Dixie Brokerage Co. v. Bailey, 212 Miss. 726, 55 So.2d 438; Donoghue v. State, 211 S.W.2d 623; Early v. Williams, 239 Miss. 321, 123 So.2d 446; General Contract Corp. v. Bailey, 218 Miss. 484, 67 So.2d 485; Gully v. Gulf Coast Industrial Loan Co., 168 Miss. 768, 151 So. 754; Hays Finance Co. v. Bailey (Miss.), 54 So.2d 727; Peter v. Boling, 140 Wn. 466, 249 P. 776, 144 Wn. 652, 258 P. 467; Richardson v. Cortner, 232 Miss. 885, 100 So.2d 854; Sinclair v. Bailey (Miss.), 55 So.2d 175; State ex rel. Fatzer v. Miller, 177 Kan. 324, 279 P.2d 223, 52 A.L.R. 2d 691; Stoutamire v. North Florida Loan Assn. (Fla.), 11 So.2d 570; Swamp Loan T. Co. v. Yokley, 174 N.C. 573, 94 S.E. 102; Texas Loan Agency v. Hunter, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 402, 35 S.W. 399; 55 Am. Jur., Usury, Sec. 14 p. 332; 17 C.J.S., Contracts, Sec. 3 p. 315. Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens Cannada, Earl R. Cruthirds, Jackson, for appellees.

Such plea made an issue to all questions pertaining to right of the plaintiff to possession of the property. Ables v. Belzoni Loan Agency, 233 Miss. 369, 102 So.2d 122; Alt v. Bailey, 211 Miss. 547, 52 So.2d 283; Associates Discount Corp. v. Ruddock, 224 Miss. 533, 81 So.2d 249; Jones v. Lamensdorf, 175 Miss. 565, 167 So. 624; McCashill v. Little, 214 Miss. 331, 58 So.2d 801; Munn v. Potter, 111 Miss. 180, 71 So. 315; Puckett v. Fore, 77 Miss. 391, 27 So. 381; Richardson v. Cortner, 232 Miss. 885, 100 So.2d 854; Strider v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 226 Miss. 773, 85 So.2d 183; Secs. 36, 2859, Code 1942; 46 Am. Jur., Sec. 100 p. 56; 91 C.J.S., Sec. 11 p. 582. II. The Valley Loan Company is a partnership composed of B.D. Chittom and Charles E. Jenkins, engaged in the handling of loans and lending money and taking security thereby, and brought this suit by Murray L. Williams, trustee.

I. The suit against appellant for the collection of past due and unpaid privilege taxes was filed pursuant to the authority vested in appellee under the statutes and fully complies with the statutory authority conferred and the statutory duties imposed upon appellee. Adams v. Clarke, 80 Miss. 134, 31 So. 216; Adams v. Lamb-Fish Lbr. Co., 104 Miss. 48, 61 So. 6; Adams v. Peoples Bank of Biloxi, 108 Miss. 346, 66 So. 407; Alt v. Bailey, 211 Miss. 547, 52 So.2d 283; Bailey, State Tax Collector v. Emmich Bros., 204 Miss. 666, 37 So.2d 797; Bennett v. Hardwell, 214 Miss. 390, 50 So.2d 82; Craig v. Gulf, M. O.R. Co., 196 Miss. 172, 16 So.2d 760; General Contract Corp. v. Bailey, 218 Miss. 484, 67 So.2d 485; Hays Finance Co. v. Bailey, (Miss.), 54 So.2d 727; Richardson v. Cortner, 232 Miss. 885, 100 So.2d 854; Secs. 9179, 9187, 9696-206, 9746, Code 1942; 84 C.J.S., Taxation, p. 1385. II. There is no merit in the contentions made and argued by appellant in the Chancery Court and before this Court, and the learned Chancellor correctly overruled the demurrer to the bill of complaint.