Opinion of'the court by

The only question involved in the case is whether or not the sum of five hundred dollars which Pettyjohn agreed to pay to Wilkin, together with the attorney’s fee to be paid to Howard, were usurious.

Howard, who acted as attorney for Pettyjohn, conducted the negotiation between them, procured the money, and completed the arrangement, testified that: “The agreement made was that Mr. Wilkin should take full charge of this matter, and rent the property and.collect the rents, and sell the remnant of stock that was there, and there was some conversation about looking after the payment of taxes, and things of that kind. There was conversation with reference to the matter that I introduced myself. My own personal obligation was out in the matter. I had gone to the sheriff, and had obligated myself to pay the taxes to avoid a tax warrant from being levied on the stock, while Wilkin undertook to see that if the assignee neglected to take care of that, that he would do so.”

Wilkin testified that: “Pettyjohn came to me for this money. He said he would gladly give any one who *138 would furnish the money five hundred dollars to assume and clean up this indebtedness. And that five hundred dollars was for the services which he rendered while he was in possession of the property, and was a part of the consideration of the note * * * and for buying and taking up the claims and looking after them.”

Special findings of fact were made by the jury. The jury expressly found that two written contracts introduced in evidence between Pettyjohn and Wilkin were not merely a scheme or device entered into between the parties for the purpose of concealing the real nature of the transaction involved; that Wilkin did not intend the transaction merely as a loan, but that he intended it as a speculation in the paper or debts of Pettyjohn; that Wilkin entered into an agreement whereby he was to furnish sufficient money on behalf of the plaintiff to pay off and settle with the creditors of the plaintiff and that the sum of five hundred dollars was not received bjr him “for the use of said money and as interest thereon;” that the agreements made between Wil-kin and Pettyjohn were not as to the five hundred dollars “a device or trick to1 cover up and conceal usury;” that Wil-kin was to render services in supervising the property of Pettyjohn as part consideration for the five hundred dollars; and that Wilkin did something further than to furnish the money and pay off the creditors; and that the five hundred dollars in controversy was not charged as interest for a loan.

Since there was evidence in .the case tending to support these special findings of fact made by the jury, and since they expressly affirm that the five hundred dollars *139 was not nsnry, but was in consideration of other services rendered by Wilkin to Pettyjohn in the settlement of his affairs, the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court upon it will not be disturbed here. We have examined the evidence and the instructions of the court. We find no error in the case.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.