Legal Opinion

First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Redick

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 21, 1884No. 330PublishedCited by 10 opinions

IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR •THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. Action below to recover penalty for taking usurious interest.

Read the full summary

IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR •THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. Action below to recover penalty for taking usurious interest. On the trial verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for $6,013.32. Plaintiff “ thereupon in open court offered to remit from the- amount of said verdict the sum of $1,013.32, and the court, upon due consideration. thereof, allowed said remitter, and ordered the same to be duly entered of record, and thereupon it was ordered and adjudged by the court that the said plaintiff have and recover from the said defendant, the First National Bank of Omaha, the…

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite

This motion is granted on the authority of Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, and Alabama Gold Life Insurance Company v. Nichols, 109 U. S. 232.

Dismissed.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Thompson v. ButlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Alabama Gold Life Insurance v. NicholsSupreme Court of the United States · 1883

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Ex parte SweeneyIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Henderson v. WadsworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  3. Pacific Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. O'ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  4. Brady v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1933
  5. Royal Ins. Co. of Liverpool v. StoddardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API