The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-11-09

tiata, ssetion the mower to supplement II by
state legislation Is conferred nel1nsl a.. 80,
nseasly nor pliea.iopsas zheragvss re1ex..
sr,ii Wiiy the rate Of Interest shoula pc 20.
Sernea by tho law of the State Snere Ine
hank Il Situated. but there 4none WIZ usuIy
sboul De visited With tho fprfeltnrsso OF the
entire debt In, one State aud with nc per.al
~hateve In snnlher. sIhP we
ti,ink. would be unreasonable aud contrary
TO the manifest intent of CUngr Where
statute prescribes rate OF INTEREST, apd
simply forbils.the taking Of mores andf more
Is contracted for the contract y good -lor
what lawfully taken, and void only
as to excess. III Forfeitures sre not favored II
the law :. Courts always inc line asainst tDem.
When either of two constructions can oe
given to q statute,au1i one of them tnvolvesa
forfeit. ure, the! other Is to be! preferred. =,
Where statute creates new offence an0
denounces the penalty !, or gives new right
aud declares. the remedy, the punishmento OF
the remedy can be only that winch tne sta'
tufe prescrihes.
penal aud Is to be literally construeoft 10 ei-
feet the object which Congress had In view We
ia euactin g,ik!sa,,s lE!l# tt& -. -
Il Ia the Revised Statutes Of the United
States Of the 22d Of june, 1874, l,oll, the
provisions OF the thirtieth eection of the ac'
of 1864 are divided into two sections and the
language is so chan ged as to reuder imposs,.
BILE In thatcase the same CONSTRUCTION as tna'
of the thirtieth section contendeo ior Dy nne
counsel Of the defendant in error IN this case
In the .r,Act to amend the Esury Lawsio
hthe District of Columbia" Of the 22d o.
April, 1870 fle stat. 1911, ftsis provided thai
g per cent. per aupum shall be- The lawn
rate of Interest, but that parties may contrac
for, 10 II e. cent. 1t is declared in the lay
ionlthat this act shall not affect .the Dank
inc actEof 1864, This latter lie gisIation Hho "!
| the spiflt By which Congress was animated
! Ia passing the thirieth section fthe act her.
under consideration. ..2-'3,. =. -. -,
l., This section has been eiaborately cousid
Eered ,by the highest court of Massachusetts
! of P.nnsylyanis, of Ohio, and of Iudiana
! Davis. receiver, us. Randall, 115 Mass, '647
| Ceutra, National Bark vs.f;Pratt, Id; 539
Second, National Bank Of Erie ys. Brow q. q
] Penn. Rep. 200; First National Bluk OF Go
! lumbus Us. Clearinghouse, % Ohio st. Rep
/ 1922; Wiley Bs. Starbuck; A Blacks Rep. l9s
] In all these cases. views were expressed ii
! conflict with those maintained int the Firs
| National. Bank of Whitehall ps. Lamb ct al
so New York Rep.Hl00. This adjudication
| controlled 1.-THE result Of the Obligations be
i tween these PARTIES (4H1Ea .s5ay ~ !
J.: Upon reason aud authority we bave n
hesitation in coming to the conclusion tina
there ia no error In the casesbefere u.s. ~.
i The plaintiff below was entitled torecove
the prineipalof tine note sued upon, less tn
amount of the interest uulawfuIly reserved
Whether heiwss entitled to recover interes
upon the amount Of the principal so re
l duced, after the maturity Of the note, is
point which has not been argued, and upo
i which Wece6pect no opinion. - !-iaE :.
The Judgment of the Court Of Appeals
reversed, and the case will be renlapdeo
with directions to proceed in conformit
| with this opinjon, 1871, 80 = 49, 3