# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_August 1864_S236
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

236 Martin Chemnitz on Usury.

And this is the one way, when someone, for a lawful reason, cannot
himself carry on business and yet cannot do without the use of his
money.

Now if someone does not want to, or cannot, give up entirely the right
of ownership over his principal, he can either sell the obligation of the
repurchase contract to another, or make use of the partnership contract.
For in this contract the principal can be reclaimed again at a certain
time — as, when one person is able to carry on business but lacks money,
while the other has money but cannot carry on business, and these two
enter into a partnership such that the one contributes the money for it
and the other the labor, this is a lawful contract. For the laws say that
what is lacking in money is made up for by labor. Between lending and
the partnership contract, however, there is this difference: that here the
right of ownership over the money is not transferred to the recipient, but
rather the risks, gains, and losses are held in common. For if an
agreement is made that the principal must remain secure for its owner,
even if the other party suffers losses through no negligence of his own,
then it becomes a loan, and everything demanded over and above the
principal is usury. But if one contributes more, either in money or in
labor, and it is agreed that he should receive more of the profit, that is
not usury but equality. But if the contribution is equal, and the one
stipulates for himself two parts of the profit and only one of the loss,
while imposing on his business partner two parts of the loss and only one
part of the profit, then the inequality makes the contract unjust. Further,
if such a partnership is entered into in such a way that no explicit
agreement is made regarding the profit, but the matter is left to the
judgment of upright men, this too is a lawful contract. But if a merchant
or craftsman who contributes the labor does not want the risks and
losses to be held in common, but instead stipulates for himself a fixed
share of the profit, then it is no longer a partnership at all, but a hiring
of labor. And this contract is lawful when it preserves the equality
required in hiring and renting. Now that we have thus recognized these
principles, judgment can be made on many questions.

There are, however, various kinds of partnership: as when the one
contributes the money, while the merchant or craftsman sets his own
industry against this money, so that both may profit from such a
business venture or such an exercise of a craft; or when the one
supplies both the money and the labor, and the other only the labor; or
when both together contribute both money and labor. We have
mentioned this, however, only with the intention that, for those who
cannot do without the use of their money and yet are not able to carry
on business or a craft themselves, the lawful