Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1876-12-15
THE UsURY LAW.

THE USURY LAW.
SUITS OF THE NATIONAL ALLEY BANK
AGAINST NJ. G. HARMAN AMI R. G.
BICKL E-IMPORTANT DECISIONS BY
JUDGE NC ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
POINTS TO BANKS AND CITIZENS,
&C., &C., &c.
In the Circuit Court Of Augusta, which
closed its session on yesterday, two i'm
portant cases were tried, in each Of which
the National Valley Bank, of S~taunton, was
plaintiff. and John N. Opie, Michael G..
Hartman and Robert G.. Bickle were de-
PENDANTS. The first case was en- a note for
$1,000, which was first discounted in that
shape, in the First National Bank Of
Staunton (now consolidated with the Ma
tional Valley Bank on the 10Th of Octo-
Der, 1874. The note was in renewal of va
rious notes waich had been preyiouslydis.
counted in said bank. 1t had its origin in
a note Of $500, discounted at u per cent.
in March 1869, and another for $500, dis
counted in May 1869, at the same rate.
On the 18th of Nov. 1859, a note was dis
counted for $4,000 at 10 per cent, out Of
which was paid the two notes of $500 and
a Baltimore draft Of S $1,000. This note Of
{, 1000 was renewed from time to time, and
consolidated with various other notes, cost
Of protest, accrued interest, &C., until it
was renewed for $4,000, on the 10th Of
Oct, 1874, the balance of which was the
,,ofo 1,,ol 0, Tho 1--we ,o, WOE ILL., ,c~.o
in all the notes, but there were from time
to time various endorsers, Bickle's name
not appearing until the 10th of Oct, 1874.
The second case was on a note for $2,450,
which was first discounted in that shape
in the National Valley Bank on the 10Th
of October, 1874. This note was also in
renewal Of various notes which had been
previously discounted in said bank. 1t
had It's origin in notes which had been dis
counted as early as 1868, at II per cent.
These notes had been consolidated in d
note, which by various ~curtails and re,
newals had been reduced to $1,000. This
last note was carried on until the 21st of
Nov. 1871; when a note WAS discounted for
about So, 100, out Of which Wa paid tile,
note Of 81, 900, and other notes and drafts
This last note was renewed from time to
time, and with cost of protests, accrued
interest, &C., until it was renewed for ST.
$50, the renewal of which was the note
sued Oh. The drawer was the same in all
the notes, but as in the other case, there
were from time to time various endorsers,
Bickel's name not appearing until the 18th.
of Oct, 1874.
We nave not stated all the particulars of:
these complicated transactions, but enough
TO show the bearing of the points decided
All the defendants pleaded nal debet, and
the defendants, Hartman and Bickle,
usury, and a special plea of Off
and payment of usurious interest, upon
the plaintiffs took issues. and also
the five years statute of limitation.
The cases were tried by the court, and
deliberately argued by Maj. H. NJ. Bell and
Geo. NJ. Cochran, Jr., Esq, for the plain
tiffs, and Judge David Fultz and Judge H.
w. Sheffey, for the defendants.
Judge Mclaughlin held:
|. That where usurious loans OF dis.
counts are made by q national bank, the
penalties are those prescribed by the Ma
tional Banking Act, and not by the statute.
law of the state.
2. That when a note is originally dis
at an Illegal OF legal rate of in
it doesn 20 lose its original character
by being renewed Or CONSOLIDATED with
other notes. The original impress re-
mains on the note or that part of the con.
solldated note. Ii once usurious the faint
on that part. If originally dis>
at a legal rate it remains free from
8. That the present Constitution of Viz
ginia having been adopted by the people of
Virginia. on the 9Th day of July, 1859, and
1 government having been organized under
t, it was in force if not from the 9th OF
July certainly anterior to the 18th of No
1869, although the Act Of Con-
PRESS under which it was submitted to she.
required the approval Of CO agrees,
which was not obtained until the 18th OF.
anuary, 1870.
4. That the constitutional provision al
owing as high as twelve per centum, Der.
mum to be exacted for the loan Of mon.
y upon debts thereafter contracted, ope~~
ated prOpri0 U1g0re. as an arnendm ,nt ota
f the statute law of the State, anil did
ot require q Legislative enactment to make
operative and effective. AID CONSEQUENT.
7 a loan OF money OF discount of a note at.
rate not exceeding twelve per cent in,
Ioyemher 1869 was not usurious,
5. That as the constitutional provision.
allows more than six per cent. to he
On debts thereafter contrac ted. ii,
not lawful to charge more than six per
ent interest on a note discounted after
ne adoption OF the Constitution, if it was
le renewal CT q note discounted before,
adoption.
6. That under the National Banking act
90 penalties are not only a forfeiture Of
le interest sinca the maturity OF tue note
I'd OF the interest OF discount reserved in
lie particular note sued on, but also all
for usurious interest heretofore
aid in the same transaction, but ii the
seeks to set off against thH prin-
pal OF the note the usurious interest paid
l the loan Or discount he cannot do SO