TALBOT
v.
SIOUX 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.
Talbot alleged that Sioux National Bank charged him usurious interest on a mortgage and sought relief under federal statute, but the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of his action because it was commenced more than two years after the alleged usurious transaction occurred, barring it under the applicable statute of limitations. The Court rejected Talbot's argument that fraudulent concealment of the usury tolled the statute of limitations, finding that the petition itself disclosed no facts supporting when the wrong was discovered.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.
1. A motion is made to dismiss on the ground that the record presents no Federal question. The motion is overruled.. Plaintiff claimed a right under sections 5197 and 5198 of the Revised Statutes, and the decisions of the courts of the State were adverse to such right. Sec. 709, Revised Statutes.
2. The demurrer of defendant in error was sustained because the action was not “ commenced within two years from the time the usurious transaction occurred.” This ruling was indubitably right if any date mentioned in the petition be that of the usurious transaction or transactions relied on. The latest date mentioned in the petition is the 31st of May, 1894, when, it is alleged, “ J. W. White and the defendant herein (plaintiff in error) . . . took possession of the lands and property described,” in the mortgage which Talbot gave to the bank March 4, 1890. The present suit was commenced October 7,1896, hence not within two years from the 31st of May, 1894, and not within six years from the date of the judgment upon which the property was sold.
But it is contended that the bank fraudulently concealed from the plaintiff that it had charged him with usurious interest, and that, therefore, the period of limitation of the statute did not begin “ until the discovery of the wrong.” A disputable proposition. Besides, it is not available to the plaintiff. The petition does not disclose when the wrong was discovered. On the face of the petition the action was barred, and agairist its allegations and the circumstances detailed in it we cannot indulge the supposition that plaintiff’s consciousness of the wrong was not aroused until some time within two years before the commencement of this action.
Judgment affirnied.
Mr. Justice Gbay took no part in the decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCARTHY v. First Nat'l Bank of Rapid City, 223 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1912)
-
Searl v. Earll, 221 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1954)…efense, but also, giving effect to the statute, after finding that the obligation had been discharged in full, we limited recovery of excess payments to those made within one year of the filing of the suit. . In Talbot v. Sioux National Bank, 1902, 185 U.S. 182, at page 188, 22 S.Ct. 621, at page 623, 46 L.Ed. 862, Mr. Justice Mc-Kenna said: “But it is contended that the bank fraudulently concealed from the plaintiff that it had charged him with usurious interest, and that, therefore, the period of limitat…1 / 2