Majority
Headnote
National banks — purchasing paper before maturity is a discount — illegal interest taken upon such a purchase — when all interest upon the paper ceases — a subsequent payment must be applied to principal.There is no dispute as to the fact that the plaintiff discounted the drafts in suit at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum, while
“ The taking, receiving, reserving or charging a rate of interest greater than is allowed by the preceding section, when knowingly done, shall be deemed a forfeiture of the entire interest, which the note, bill or other evidence of debt carries with it, or which has been agreed to be paid thereon. In case the greater rate of interest has been paid, the person by whom it has been paid or his legal representatives may recover back, in an action in the nature of an action of debt, twice the amount of the interest thus paid from the association taking or receiving the same, provided such action is commenced within two years from the time the usurious transaction occurred.” The effect of the provisions of the national currency act which are embodied in these sections was considered by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Barnet v. National Bank ( 98 U. S., 555 ), and it was there declared that the statute defined two categories and announced the consequences thus :
“ 1. Where illegal interest has been knowingly stipulated for, but not paid, there only the sum lent without interest can be recovered.
“ 2. Where such illegal interest has been paid, then twice the amount so paid can be recovered in a penal action of debt, or suit in the nature of such action, against the offending bank, brought by the persons paying the same or their legal representatives.”
In that case it was accordingly held that where usurious interest had been actually paid to a national bank upon a bill of exchange, such interest could not be.applied by way of offset or payment on the instrument.
Under this decision, the interest prior to maturity upon the drafts involved in the present suit was forfeited, if it was merely reserved but not paid. As was said in the case of the National Bank of Auburn v. Lewis ( 81 N. Y., 20 ): “When a note is discounted, the amount reserved for the discount is the interest reserved. In
These views would necessarily result in an affirmance of the judgment if no other questions were presented by this appeal. The defendants, however, insist that it was error to permit any recovery, on account of interest accruing after the maturity of the drafts in suit, and that a payment of $2,360, made to the bank by the executor of the' acceptor, was erroneously credited on account of such interest, whereas it should have gone to diminish the amount of the principal debt. In both respects we think the contention of the ■appellants is correct.
The forfeiture prescribed by the Federal statute is not merely a forfeiture of the interest which has been agreed to be paid, but a forfeiture “ of the entire interest which the note, bill or other evidence of debt carries with it.” In other words, the reservation or acceptance of usury destroys the further interest-bearing capacity of the paper. It was so held by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in the case of the Peterborough National Bank v. Childs ( 133 Mass., 248 ), in an opinion with the reasoning and result of which we entirely concur.
As to the payment of $2,360, which has been mentioned, there was no competent evidence of any intention to apply it to the interest on the part of the person from whom the money was-received. The drafts having lost their capacity to draw interest, HO' interest was due, and the payment could properly be applied only on account of the principal. (See Adams v. Mahnken, 41 N. J. Eq. [14 Stewart], 332; Gill v. Rice, 13 Wisc., 549; Greene v. Tyler, 39 Pa. St., 361 .)
The judgment must, therefore, be reversed and there must be a new trial, unless the respondent will stipulate to reduce the judgment by deducting the amount included therein for interest accruing since the maturity of the drafts, together with the $2,360 which should have been credited as a payment on the principal.
Present — Yan Brunt, P. J"., Barrett and Bartlett, JJ.
Judgment modified as expressed in opinion, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.