« PreviousContinue »
LIBRARY OF THE LELAND STWEIRD JR. UNIVERSITY.
AUG 27 1900
RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE: STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY
H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ætna Ins. Co. (Boon v.). 179 Commonwealth, The (Ortwein v.) 435 Aldrich v. Wright
49 Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. DorAmerican Pop. Life Insurance Co. flinger.
511 (Fitch v.) 496 Cory v. Carter
. 73 Androscoggin Mills (E. & C. R. R. Crawford (C. C. & C. R. R. Co.v.) 211 Co. v.):
485 Cullen v. The Commonwealth.'. 349 Atlee v. Northwestern Union Pack317 Dana (Lawrence v.)
Dorflinger (Con. Fruit Jar Co. v.) 511 Bailey v. Clark. 226 Dozier (Bier v.)
229 Barker v. Barker's Assignee 386 Barney v. Leeds 251 Earp v. Boothe .
312 Bartenback, in re
33 E. & C. R. R. Co. v. Androscoggin Basey v. Gallagher 141 Mills
485 Bier v. Dozier
229 Boon v. Ætna Ins. Co.
179 First Nat'l Bank (Chesapeake Boothe (Earp v.) 312 Bank v.)
224 Bowyer, (Wrightsman v.) . 308 | First Nat'l Bank of Clarion v. Brown v. United States 464 Jones
135 Bunbury, (Weimer v.)
37 First Nat'l Bank of Selma v. Colby 283
Fitch v. Am. Pop. Life Ins. Co. 496 Caldwell (So. Express Co. v.) 162 Fontain (Guillon v.)
502 Canney (Ossipee, &c. Co. v.) 514 Carter (City of Pontiac v.) 376 Gallagher (Basey. v.)
141 (Cory v.)
73 Garrison v. Mayor of N. Y.. . 167 Central Nat'l Bank v. Pratt
1 Germania Ins. Co. v. Sherlock . . 330 Chesapeake Bank v. First Nat'l Gill v. Wells
. 101 Bank 224 Gilman v. Laconia .
357 C. D. & V. R. R. Co. (Osgood v.) 242 Gladfelter v. Walker,
. 323 Citizens' Nat'l Bank of Baltimore
153 (Maitland v.)
261 Grand Rapids (McBride v.) . 533 Citizens' Savings, &c. Ass. v. To- Guillon v. Fontain .
502 peka 172 Guthrie (Plumer v.)
446 Clark (Bailey v.)
204 Clarke v. The Commonwealth 489 Hoffman (I. C. R. R. Co. v.) 461 Cl., Col. & Cin. R. R. Co. v. Craw- Home Ins. Co. v. Morse
19 ford 211 Hone (Jerrett v.)
97 Colby (First Nat'l Bank of Sel- Hotchkiss v. Nat'l Shoe & Leather ma v.) 261 Bank
304 Coleman v. The Commonwealth . 390 Hughes (United States v.) . 300 Commonwealth, The (Clarke v.) 489 (Coleman v.)
390 | Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Hoff-
Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Johnson 433 | Parkinson v Lasalle
Penna. R. R. Co. v. Weber . 364 Jerrett v. Hone
97 People, The (Underwood v.) . 287 Johnson (I. C. R. R. Co. v.). 433 Plumer v. Guthrie
· 446 Jones (First Nat'l Bank of Clar- Pontiac, City of, v. Carter · 135 Pratt (Cent. Nat'l Bank v.)
1 (United States v.)
238 Kimball v. Milford . . 504 | Price v. Gover .
153 Knapp v. U. S. & Canada Ex. Co. • 476 Rodgers v. Tullos
147 Koch r. Oregon Steamship Co.. 381
Saginaw Valley & St. L. R. R. Co. Laconia (Gilman v.) . 357 (McDonald v.)
29 Lang v. Henry 204 Sexton (Youngblood v.)
538 Lasalle (Parkinson v.)
· 279 Sherlock (Germania Ins. Co. v.) . 330 Lawrence v. Dana . 402 Sloan v. Lewis
259 Leeds (Barney v.)
· 251 So. Express Co. v. Caldwell. 162 Lewis (Sloan v.) 259 Sparhawk r. Sparhawk
194 Long (Tawney v.) . 341 Sparks (Williams v.).
48 Lotawana, The • 290 Sprott v. United States
26 Stanley v. The State
14 Maitland v. Citizens' Nat'l Bank of Baltimore. . 261 Tawney v. Long
341 Mayor of New York (Garrison. v.). 167 Topeka, City of (Citizens', &c. McBride v. Grand Rapids
172 McDonald v. Sag. Valley & St. L. Tullos (Rodgers v.)
147 R. R. Co..
29 Memphis, City of (Murdock v.) 113 Underwood v. The People
287 Meneely v. Meneely 482 Union Hall Ass. v. Morrison
7 Milford (Kimball v.) 504 United States (Brown v.)
464 Milner's Adm’r v. City of Pensa
300 cola .
238 Morrison (Union Hall Ass. v.). 7
26 Morse (Home Ins. Co. v.)
19 U. S. & Canada Express Co. Murdock v. City of Memphis 113 (Knapp v.)
Nat'l Shoe & Leather Bank (Hotch- Walker (Gladfelter v.) kiss v.) :
304 Weber (Penna. R. R. Co. v.) Northwestern Union Packet Co. Weimer v. Bunbury (Atlee v.).
. 317 | Wells (Gill v.)
Williams v. Sparks .
242 Youngblood v. Sexton Ossipee, &c. Man. Co. v. Canney . 514
AMERICAN LAW TIMES REPORTS:
A COLLECTION OF
DECIDED IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND COURTS
OF FINAL APPEAL OF ALL THE STATES.
NEW SERIES. — JANUARY, 1875. – VOL. II., No. 1.
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS.
NATIONAL BANK. USURY LAWS OF STATES NOT APPLICABLE TO.
POWER OF CONGRESS TO FIX RATE OF INTEREST, ETC.
CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK v. PRATT.
(To appear in 115 Mass.)
It is within the constitutional power of Congress, to fix the rate of interest which a na
tional bank may take upon a loan of money and to determine the penalty to be imposed for taking a greater rate, and such power wher exercised by Congress is exclusive of state legislation. The provision of the U. S. St. of 1864, c. 106, § 30, limiting the forfeiture for the mak
ing usurious charges by national banks to the interest, applies as well to banks established in states where a rate of interest is fixed by law, as to banks in states where no rate is fixed. The laws of New York imposing, penalties for taking usury do not apply to national banks established within the limits of that state.
CONTRACT by a national bank organized under the national banking acts of the United States, and having its place of business in the city of New York, against the indorser of a bill of exchange drawn by Joseph M. Strong of New York upon Matt Ellis of Boston, payable to the order of the defendant, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff
, and accepted by Ellis. Trial in the superior court, before Devens, J., who reserved the case for the consideration of this court on the following report:
“The bill of exchange was discounted by the plaintiff in New York on the day of its date, upon presentation for discount by said Strong. It was agreed by the defendant at the trial that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, unless the plaintiff took or reserved a greater rate of interest for discounting said bill than seven per centum per annum, and unless the VOL. II.
CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK v. Pratt.
bill exchange was void by virtue of the laws of the State of New York against usury. The defendant's answer set up that in discounting the bill of exchange, the plaintiff lent to the drawer a sum of money for which it received usurious interest contrary to the laws of New York, and that by so doing the bill of exchange was void.
“ The plaintiff contended that the laws of New York against usury were controlled by the national banking acts, and that the bill of exchange sued upon would not be void even if usurious interest had been reserved or taken by the plaintiff in discounting said bill ; and this question is reserved, at the request of both parties, for determination by the supreme judicial court. If the court shall hold that such usury does not render the bill of exchange void, then judgment is to be rendered for the plaintiff; if such usury does render the bill of exchange void, the case is to stand for trial in the superior court."
D. E. Ware f J. T. Morse, Jr., for the plaintiff.
E. Avery & R. C. Lincoln, for the defendant. 1. The question whether the effect of usury is a forfeiture of the whole debt or bill, under the law of the State of New York, or of the interest merely, under United States law, depends upon the construction and operation of the U. S. St. of 1864, c. 106, § 30. It is contended for the defendant that the consistent and correct construction of this section leaves the case to be governed by the New York usury laws; and further, that if its operation were such as to supersede the state law, it would be unconstitutional. This is the ground taken by the New York court of appeals, in a case like the present one. First National Bank of Whitehall v. Lamb, 50 N. Y. 95. See also In re Wild, 11 Blatchf. 243. But, independently of that case, the question may admit of a further consideration. It is submitted that any provision of the banking act which is not necessary, i. e. conducive or useful to the end proposed by the act, especially if in conflict with a state law upon the same subject, is unconstitutional; and that the provision concerning forfeiture, if connected with the first paragraph of $ 30, is, so far, unnecessary and incongruous. That construction, therefore, which avoids such result (as the structure of the section admits equally of two interpretations) may properly be considered the better expression of the intention of the framers. It is, then, contended for the defendant, that the enactment of a forfeiture and penalty for usurious loans and discounts in all the states, is unnecessary. It is manifest from the general tenor of the act, and from $ 30 itself, that the sole purpose therein was to establish banks of issue, to provide for the circulation of a national currency, and to legislate for the other functions of a bank, discount and deposit, only so far as such legislation was “ necessary and proper” to carry out that sole purpose. The banks must be protected in the lawful exercise of their powers; but is it therefore necessary and proper for carrying into execution these powers that Congress should prescribe punishment for an exercise of such powers, arising in purely private dealings, which may be unlawful merely because so ordained by state laws, unless such illegal acts hinder the usefulness of the banks in accomplishing the purpose for which they were established ? It is submitted that the ordaining a rate of interest on loans and discounts, and, at all events, a punishment for taking a greater than the fixed rate, is not necessary or appropriate to promote the sole purpose for which these