Case Name: Webster and others vs. The Bank of the State
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1842-07
Citations: 4 Ark. 423
Docket Number: 
Parties: Webster and others vs. The Bank of the State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 423–423

Head Matter:
Webster and others vs. The Bank of the State.
The Bank of the State is constitutional. Its constitutionality is not-an opon question. In a suit by that Bank, sho being properly described in the writ and declaration, if, in the caption of the judgment, the style is “ The State Bank of Arkansas,” it will be considered a mere clerical misprison.
The Bank of the State has a right to take a higher rate of interest than six per cent.,without specifying it in the note, bond, &c.; and bills, notes, and bonds, duo her, bear interest from maturity, at the rato of ten per cent, per annum.
This was an action of debt, determined in the Washington Circuit Court, in May, 1841, before the Hon. Joseph M. Hoge, one of the Circuit Judges. The facts of the case were precisely like McFarland and others vs. • The Bank of the State, except in one solitary point, mentioned in the opinion.
The case was argued here by Gilchrist & Evans, for the plaintifife in error, and by Hempstead & Johnson, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Lacy, J.
The question as to the constitutionality of the Bank of the State of Arkansas, is not open for investigation, as that point has been expressly ruled, in several cases before decided by this Court. The objection that there is a variance in the judgment, it being rendered in the name of the State Bank, against the plaintiffs in error, we deem to be a mere clerical misprison. The declaration and writ show, that the suit was brought in the name of the Bank of the State of Arkansas. And when the judgment states that the plaintiffs below recover against the defendants, it certainly means, the legal corporation who had a right to sue. The objection to the writ, that there is no seal thereto, would be well founded, had it not been waived by consent, upon the record.
The question in regard to the interest has also been expressly decided, in the case of McFarland and others vs. The Bank of the State of Arkansas.
Judgment affirmed.