Driesbach v. National Bank

104 U.S. 52, 26 L. Ed. 658, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1968
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 18, 1881
Docket58
StatusPublished
Cited by53 cases

This text of 104 U.S. 52 (Driesbach v. National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Driesbach v. National Bank, 104 U.S. 52, 26 L. Ed. 658, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1968 (1881).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The object of the plaintiffs in error in these suits is to havé usurious interest paid a national bank on renewing a series of notes, of which those now in suit are the last, applied in satis *54 faction of tbe principal of the debt. The claim is not for interest stipulated for and included in' the notes sued on, but for the application of what has actually been paid as interest tó' the discharge of principal. This we held in Barnet v. National Bank (98 U. S. 555) could not be done and in First National Bank of Clarion v. Gruber (8 Weekly Notes of Cases, 119), and National Bank of Fayette County v. Dushane (9 id. 472), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania followed that case, overruling its former decisions on the same question in Lucas v. Government National Bank (78 Pa. St. 228) and Oberholt v. National Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 82 id. 490. If, therefore, we reverse the judgments for the specific errors now complained of, it would serve no useful purpose, for on the facts admitted the same general result must follow; another trial. Without, therefore, considering at all the question on which the cases seem to ■have turned below, the judgments are

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Meadow Brook National Bank v. Recile
302 F. Supp. 62 (E.D. Louisiana, 1969)
Citizens Bridge Co. v. Guerra
248 S.W.2d 538 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1952)
John R. Alley & Co. v. Federal Nat. Bank
124 F.2d 995 (Tenth Circuit, 1942)
Lowery v. First Nat. Bank of Oneonta
196 So. 891 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)
Lloyd v. Massachusetts Accident Co.
5 A.2d 312 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1939)
McCollum v. Hamilton National Bank
303 U.S. 245 (Supreme Court, 1938)
First Nat. Bank of Oneonta v. Lowery
173 So. 382 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Owens v. National Bank of John A. Black
66 S.W.2d 518 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
Jones v. Moore
102 So. 200 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Portland Building Co. v. State Bank
222 P. 740 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1924)
J. Allen Smith & Co. v. Montgomery
95 So. 290 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Lowell v. Merchants' Nat. Bank
283 F. 124 (D. New Hampshire, 1922)
Planters National Bank of Virginia v. Wysong & Miles Co.
99 S.E. 199 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Lindberg v. Burton
171 N.W. 616 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1918)
Mitchell v. Joplin National Bank
204 S.W. 1125 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1918)
First State Bank of Chandler v. Pool
1917 OK 448 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Baker v. Lynchburg National Bank
91 S.E. 157 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1917)
Bank of Tuttle v. Gordon
1916 OK 1047 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 U.S. 52, 26 L. Ed. 658, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driesbach-v-national-bank-scotus-1881.