The Yazoo City Whig and political register. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1843-07-14


come auxiliary to the consumation of viola
lions of law2" The length Of this extract
will be excused, because it IS necessary to
the distinct understanding of the decision.
Here it is expressly stated that the deci-
SIGN is to turn alone upon the construction
of the charter Of that bank, without refer
|ence to the bearing of any general statute
upon the subiectIsf interest. Why 1t was
Sc considered does not appear; perhaps il ee
was-because the court then thought there was
no general statute which ould bear upon it,
Tor which would vary the result. The same
court had previously decided in more than
one instance, that the Bank Of the United
States was governed by Congress alone, and
was subject to no other legislation. McCu-
lough vs. Stale of Maryland 4 Wh: VIII.
1859. Now. there was no act Of Congress
other than the charter on the subject of in
lterest, which could bear on the point, and
the court in the outse. disclaims any refer
ence to the act Of Kentucky, and confines
its attention exclusively to the charter. We
shall see in the further progress of this oPin-
! ion, that its course has not been uniform on
this point. The words of the charter are
"nor shall said bank take more than at the
rate of six per cent per annum, for,or upon
its leans or discounts" By the demurrer it
was admitted that the bank had stunlawfully.
usuriOusly, and corruptly" stipulated for
mere than the legal rate Of interest. And
| the court decided that the contract was void
/ upon general principles "and that there
could be no legal remedy for that which is
, itself illegal" With this general conclusion
we have no concern; shall proceed to point
. out the difference between the case and the
= one before this court. First, the charter Of
g the Commercial Bank Of Manchester does
y not in terms declare, that j. shall not take
ie more than eight per cent discount; the infer
e. ence that the taking of more is prohibited,
r is mere deduction unless it be drawn from
= the general statute Of this Stale on the sub
n ject of interest. Next, there is no act Of
81 Congress which permitted a recovery of the
!! principal sum lent. where there had been
= tusury, and the case was left to the general.
= common law doctrine. Had there been an
n act of Congress similar TO our statute, we be-
70 lieve a different decision would have been
2 made, else why do they so carefully say that
It they cannot consider of the effect of the
e statute Of Kentucky.
d But there is still stronger evidence on this
u lpoing. The case Of the Bank VS. Owens in
1 2 Peters came up on 4 certificate Of division
y Of opinion ofthe judges of the Circuit Court;
y when the cause was remanded, the demur-
y; rer was Withdrawn and replicaiiens filed, a
Jury, verdict-judgernent for defendant and
az lanother appeal. The case, of the Bank of
n. the United States VS. Wagner ct al Peters.
n. 1873, is the same case and between the same
- parties, the order Of names only being rsvers-
- ed with that of the Bank VS. Owens in Cd
~ Peters. In delivering its opinion in the case
ne in 9th Peters, il will be seen that the court
AIS departs from the course pursued in I'd Pc
IN tiers and takes the usuary act Of Kentucky
lie into its considerations II says, tit is in re-
mt ference to the usury act of kentucky, and
I'd. this article of the bank charter that the vari
he Gus instructions asked or given are to be ex
he lamined."
The rule of construction adopted in refer
- ence to the usury laws. is there stated.
- They treat the question throughout as on
on which is influenced by the statute Of usury
apply the same rules of construction. an,
set under this view of the subject, they agail
I've reverse the case and send il back with in
rds structions strongly calculated toinsurer ecoV
, is cry on the part of the bank Hence it seem
that the court Teceded from the position take
~, in the case Of Owens, thar Ii was 10 be con
Esidered without references to the general laS
~ Of usurYs and took broader and juste
tnis view.
ank But to test sin further the claims whic
al that case has on our regard IS authority; |,
the us leok to what the same court said on
previous occasion, as to theinvaliditv of
this icontract on the ground Of usury. In III
led case Of d. Wolfe, Johnson, 9th WheatoI
aoO they say, "under & law which forbids eli
80 taking usuTious interest, but does not ayoi
80 The securities, court Of equity will not 5,
Iacs fuse its aid to recover the principal" WI
mat should a court of law, under precisely Il
how same circumstances, refuse to become d
step handmdid Of iuiquity, in the language Of ii
What case of Owens, and turn the party from
! in door. A court Of equity Is usually esteem
e 10 lpurer than any other tribunal and mu
THE more. rigorous in excluding claims on &
!, ~ score of iniquity than couE law.
Again in tie case Of LLOYD vs. Scott. 4
ls'ou Peters, eos. the Same court says ssllat Hsu
rest is now only considered az illegal Or mmo
atom act, because Il IS prohibited By law Fre
upon this it follows inevitably that the nleast
stand lof its Illegally IS, the extent Of the prohi
v ia ton law; and as ia this Stase. there is
nora forfeiture by statute, except Of the intere
ner the party has 3 clear right 70 recover
-, principal. Once more-~in the case Of FIJI
. .s.1 lner VS. the Bank Of the United States.
lsssu, VIII, the court says: The statutes Of
game States, rs we'll Is of England contain
I, de- press provision. that usurions contr,
!. shall Be utterly void; and without such
! con- enaciment, the contract Would bs valid
Finci- least ii respect 10 persons who were strs
plain ers 70 the usury. The taking of the ia
an in est by the bank beyond the sum author
guilty. by the charter, would Be violation,
81 the which remedy might Be applied BY the
"a, be- eminent; but as the act q Congress