Brown v. Marion National Bank
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 110 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The provisions of the National Bank Act prescribing a penalty for the taking of usury by national banks may be enforced in the State courts, the form of procedure being regulated by the local rules of practice, but the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are of binding authority. (Farmers’ Nat. Bank v. Deering, 91 U. S., 29; Bletz v. Columbia Nat. Bank, 30 Am. Bep., 343; Henderson Nat.
Read the full summary
Case 110 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The provisions of the National Bank Act prescribing a penalty for the taking of usury by national banks may be enforced in the State courts, the form of procedure being regulated by the local rules of practice, but the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are of binding authority. (Farmers’ Nat. Bank v. Deering, 91 U. S., 29; Bletz v. Columbia Nat. Bank, 30 Am. Bep., 343; Henderson Nat. Bank v. Alves, 12 Ky. Law Bep., 722.) The Act is penal in its nature, but it is also a remedial statute, acting upon the offense…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
delivered the opinion op the court.
Appellant Brown,, to whom a deed of trust was made by L. and E. Baxter, for benefit of creditors, brought this notion under sections 5197-8, Revised Statutes United States, to recover back from appellee, Marion National Bank, twice the amount of interest paid on certain promissory notes.
He had previously instituted another action for settlement of estates of the insolvent debtors and distribution of assets among creditors, in which appellee had presented and filed the notes mentioned for payment; and the two actions appear to have been…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hovel v. KaufmanTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- Sydner v. Mt. Sterling National BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1893