The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-02-22

supreuas Csurt pseisien sesaraiss The Recsv-
cry OF ~untercst CharEed ~ usprieus Rates.

saprerae Ceurt pestsien Regardless the Recsv.
cry OF ustercst CharEed at Usprious Rates.
WASHINGTON. Feb. 21.-The Supreme Court
to-day, In an opinion announced by Justice
Harlan, rave q radical construction to the SEQ
tions Of the Revised Statutes regulating the rate
Of interest to DO charged by national banks and
the recovery Of interest charged at usurious
rates. The case at bar came from Kentucky.
where tho Court Of Appeals twice found in favor
OF the bank involved. the Marion National Bank
OF Lebanon. The sections in issue provide that
n bank may charge q legal rate of interest all
lowed by tho laws Of the State in which 1t is To-
Gated; that the charging Of any rate In excess
thereof works q forfeiture Of tho entire amount
Of interest, and that twice the amount paid may
DO recovered by the person paying It. Discuss
ing these sections, the opinion says:
Interest included In a renewal note, or evil
dcnced by q separate note, does not cease there
by to be interest within the meaning Of the SOC
ton and become principal. 30 as TO escape the
forfeiture declared for knowingly taking, re-
colying; reserving, or contracting an illegal
at the bank sue. upon the note. bill or other
;Ssiss sSas Of the Sss sn.i hslf ins Sy IL t legal dG snS us %9I
Gus, included in written obligation and agreed
to be paid, but which has not been actually paid,
principal debt. with interest at tho legal rate
IIOW TING COD1mtnCBWtnt Vi n bulU.
"The forfeiture declared by the statute 10 not
waived by giving q renewal note, In which is In
Sl0Ssd s ssS SSJ.iG %sI lnt ss made No II 9. tie ,b s9T
has charged, a greater rate of interest than
the law alloys, It must 4 the ,. forfeit felt
and the matter 10 thus brought to the attention
Of the court, lose the entire interest which
paid. BY NO other construction Of the statute
can effect be given to the clause forfeiting the
AyfdenCa Of debit CnrrieR- or which VIVA agreed TO
1T Is said that, within the meaning Of the 40
upon tho last NOTE sailing for Interest
Saeises e forioitdSro. sWSt We Think that the
paid simply By including Il in a renewal note, it
toress agreed to b paid. vas Included 9
Oh oblieor o sshd" sue the hS'' Lenders or oU5 Big and
recover back twice the amount Of the interest
d shSs p pord ANY yP psat e os t Rsa interest nsa; II as lss sSic 8.'qT 1aS
cannot DO q sound Interpretation Of the statute.
has b Seru paid refer to interest actually paid, as
distinguished from interest included In the note
and agreed to be paid .
national bank for o named sum AS evidence OF q
loan to him Of that amount, to DO paid In one
notes are executed each year for Ave
BY the borrower-cach renewal note including
past interest,", legal and usurious-the sum in
originally loaned, would be interest which that
note carried or which was agreed to be paid,
and not, as to any part of 1t, interest paid.
1T 10 difficult to tell from the record whom
there were actual payments Of usurious interest
as such. Sometimes interest Is said to have
been paid when 1t is evident that 1t was only
included in q renewal note. but that
was not payment within the meaning Of
the statute. Driesbach VS.. National Bank, 1OA
u. s. 52.l II tho note when sued on includes
usurious interest, or interest upon usurious in
terest, agreed to be paid, the holder may elect to
remit such interest, and 1t cannot then DO said
that usurious interest was paid to him."
The judgment of the kentucky Court Of APP
peals was reversed.