The title _damnum emergens_ never presented any serious difficulty. It was recognised by Albertus Magnus,[1] and laid down so clearly by Aquinas that it was not afterwards questioned: 'A lender may without sin enter an agreement with the borrower for compensation for the loss he incurs of something he ought to have, for this is not to sell the use of money, but to avoid a loss. It may also happen that the borrower avoids a greater loss than the lender incurs, wherefore the borrower may repay the lender with what he has gained.'[2] The usual example given to illustrate how _damnum emergens_ might arise, was the case of the lender being obliged, on account of the failure of the borrower, to borrow money himself at usury.[3] [Footnote 1: Roscher, _Geschichte_, p. 27.] [Footnote 2: II. ii. 78, 2, ad. 1.] [Footnote 3: Ashley, _op. cit._, vol. i. pt. i. p. 400.] Closely allied to the title of _damnum emergens_ was that of _lucrum cessans_. According to some writers, the latter was the only true interest. Dr. Cleary quotes some thirteenth-century documents in which a clear distinction is made between _damnum_ and _interesse_;[1] and it seems to have been the common custom in Germany at a later date to distinguish between _interesse_ and _schaden_.[2] Although the division between these two titles was very indefinite, they did not meet recognition with equal readiness; the title _damnum emergens_ was universally admitted by all authorities; while that of _lucrum cessans_ was but gradually admitted, and hedged round with many limitations.[3] [Footnote 1: _Op. cit._, p. 95.] [Footnote 2: Ashley, _op. cit._, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 401.] [Footnote 3: Cleary, _op. cit._, p. 98; Endemann, _Studien_, vol. ii. p. 279; Bartolus and Baldus said that _damnum emergens_ and _lucrum cessans_ were divided by a very narrow line, and that it was often difficult to distinguish between them. They suggested that the terms _interesse proximum_ and _interesse remotum_ would be more satisfactory, but they were not followed by other writers (Endemann, _Studien_, vol. ii, pp. 269-70).]