DRIESBACH
v.
NATIONAL BANK; STARK V. NATIONAL BANK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court affirmed judgments in two consolidated cases where borrowers sought to apply usurious interest they had paid on renewed promissory notes to a national bank toward reducing the principal debt owed. The Court held that such interest payments could not be credited against principal, affirming the precedent it had established in Barnet v. National Bank and which Pennsylvania state courts had subsequently followed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The object of the plaintiffs in error in these suits is to havé usurious interest paid a national bank on renewing a series of notes, of which those now in suit are the last, applied in satisfaction of tbe principal of the debt. The claim is not for interest stipulated for and included in' the notes sued on, but for the application of what has actually been paid as interest tó' the discharge of principal. This we held in Barnet v. National Bank (98 U. S. 555) could not be done and in First National Bank of Clarion v. Gruber (8 Weekly Notes of Cases, 119), and National Bank of Fayette County v. Dushane (9 id. 472), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania followed that case, overruling its former decisions on the same question in Lucas v. Government National Bank (78 Pa. St. 228) and Oberholt v. National Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 82 id.
490. If, therefore, we reverse the judgments for the specific errors now complained of, it would serve no useful purpose, for on the facts admitted the same general result must follow; another trial. Without, therefore, considering at all the question on which the cases seem to have turned below, the judgments are
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
State v. City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1926)…icipal organization as a city, borough, town, or village, or other corporate form recognized by the Constitution and laws of the [*587] State.” The notes to the text give copious citations. One of the cases cited is Kelly v. Pittsburg, 104 U. S. 78, 26 Law. Ed. 658, where it was held: “What parts of a State shall, for local purposes, be governed by a county, a town or a city 'government, and the character of the land included in each, are matters of detail within the legislative discretion.” See also Sections…
-
State v. The City of Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1933)…203, 184 N. W. 850. [*661] The principles of law herein stated are consistent with previous decisions of this court and are not inconsistent with the decisions in other states similar to the leading case of Kelly v. City of Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78, 26 L. Ed. 658, here it was not shown that the lands included within the corporate limits of a large city were not wholly beyond the potential needs of the city, or that such lands could not reasonably receive some benefits from the municipality. See also State v.…
-
State v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 102 Fla. 1019 (Fla. 1931)…of Florida ex rel. Johnson v. City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563, and State of Florida ex rel. Davis v. City of Eau Gallie, 99 Fla. 579. It could serve no good purpose to again cover these questions here. In the case of Kelly v. Pittsburg, 104 U. S. 78, 26 Law Ed. 658, the Supreme Court of the United States has this to say: “ It is not denied that the Legislature could rightfully enlarge the boundary of the City of Pittsburg so as to include the defendants land. If this power were denied, we are unable to see ho…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barnet v. Nat'l Bank, 98 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1878)