Knox v. Bank of United States
Mississippi Supreme Court
In error from the superior court of chancery; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor. The opinion of the court contains all the material facts of the case upon which the decision was made. Appellees filed a bill of foreclosure against appellants, who set up, in defence, 1st. A garnishment for the debt, but abandoned it as shown by agreement of counsel, p. 25. 2d.
Read the full summary
In error from the superior court of chancery; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor. The opinion of the court contains all the material facts of the case upon which the decision was made. Appellees filed a bill of foreclosure against appellants, who set up, in defence, 1st. A garnishment for the debt, but abandoned it as shown by agreement of counsel, p. 25. 2d. Usury in this, that 8 per cent, interest was reserved in the notes, when the charter of the bank prohibited it to reserve more than 6 per cent. Said agreement admits that interest was so reserved, and allows either party to refer to the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Handy
1. The contract in this case is not usurious. The prohibition in the charter of the bank against interest exceeding the rate of six per cent., is confined to the State of Pennsylvania. The bank had power to make contracts in other States. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 588. And she had general power, *67by her charter, to make loans. She is only restricted as to Pennsylvaniaand if she makes contracts in other States not forbidden by their laws, they are valid. 14 Peters, 129; 4 Rob. La. R. 517.
2. No notice to the defendant was necessary in taking the account of the mortgage debt. It was a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Runyan v. Lessee of CosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1840
- Dean v. De LezardiCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 1852
3Cited by1 opinion
- Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978