Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Stephens v. Monongahela Bank
Stephens v. Monongahela Bank, 111 U.S. 197 (1884)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1884-03-31
- Topic
- general
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered.the opinion of the court. As to the first of these defences, it is sufficient to say that the plea of another action pending is a plea in abatement, Baa. Abr. Abatement M; Com.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Stephens v. Monongahela Bank. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 52 opinions
Headnotes
- Civil Procedure — Plea in Abatement — Another Action Pending The defense of another action pending may only be raised by a plea in abatement, and under Rev. Stat. § 1011 no reversal lies for error in ruling on any plea in abatement other than a plea to the jurisdiction of the court; such a defense merely defeats the present proceeding and does not conclude the plaintiff forever, either as to his right to sue in the federal court or as to the merits. 111 U.S. at 198-199
- Banking & Financial Services — National Banks — Usurious Interest — Exclusive Statutory Remedy Because, absent the statute, there could be no recovery from a national bank for usurious interest actually paid, and because the statute creating that right also prescribes the remedy, the remedy given by Rev. Stat. § 5198 for recovery of usurious interest paid to a national bank is exclusive of all others for enforcement of that right. 111 U.S. at 199-200
- Banking & Financial Services — National Banks — Usury — Rights of Surety A surety on a note sued on by a national bank stands in no better position than his principal as to usurious interest actually paid by the principal, and therefore has no right to have such interest applied to the discharge of the principal of the note; the forfeiture and the remedy are creatures of the same statute and must stand or fall together. 111 U.S. at 200
- Banking & Financial Services — National Banks — Usury — Defensive Set-Off To entitle a defendant to relief against a national bank on account of usury, it must appear by distinct averment that the note sued on includes interest stipulated for and not paid, as well as principal; an affidavit of defense showing only that usurious interest was actually paid at the discount and renewals does not suffice. 111 U.S. at 200
STEPHENS v. MONONGAHELA BANK,111 U.S. 197(1884)
4 S.Ct. 336
STEPHENSv. MONONGAHELA BANK.
IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
Argued March 17th, 1884.
Decided March 31st, 1884.
1. That another suit was pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Green County, Pennsylvania, between the same parties for the same identical cause of action.
2. That the original of the note in suit was discounted and taken by the bank on the 27th of June, 1871; that the money advanced thereon at the time was only $8,434.65; that the loan was renewed by six subsequent notes, the last being the note in suit; that upon such loan and each of the renewals the bank "knowingly took, received, reserved, and charged" usurious interest, amounting in the aggregate to $3,736.50; that the defendant is only surety for Israel Stephens, the maker of the note; and that the defendant is entitled to set off the amount of the "interest so knowingly taken, received, reserved, and charged by the bank" "against the money loaned on the original of the note in suit."
3. That the bank had "knowingly taken, received, reserved,Page 198and charged at various times discount and interest, in excess of the amount permitted by its fundamental law, on other loans to the principal debtor, amounting in the aggregate to $6,773.10, which was a proper set off against the claim in the suit.
4. That the paper on which the note sued on was written was signed in blank by the parties thereto when it was taken to the bank for the purpose of renewal; that no one had authority to fill the blanks for anything else than the exact amount due on the original note, after deducting all payments, and that it was filled by an officer of the bank for the sum of $9,500, when, in view of the usury taken, less than $6,000 was due.
All the other defences are covered by the decision of this court inBarnetv.National Bank,98 U.S. 555. The onlyPage 199difference between that case and this is that there the defendant was the maker of the note who actually paid the usurious interest, and here the defendant is the surety of the maker. It is difficult to see how the surety stands, as to the question now presented, in any better position than his principal. The ground of that decision was, that as without the statute there could be no recovery from the bank for usurious interest actually paid, and as the statute which created the right to such a recovery also prescribed the remedy, that remedy was exclusive of all others for the enforcement of that right.Farmers' Mechanics'National Bankv.Dearing,91 U.S. 29. The surety has not any more than his principal the right to recover back the interest without the aid of a statute. Consequently, if his principal could not make this defence, he cannot. The forfeiture and the remedy are creatures of the same statute, and must stand or fall together.
The defence, as stated in the affidavit, is not that interest stipulated for has been included in the note, but that interest actually paid at the time of the discount and the several renewals should be applied to the discharge of the principal. In this particular, the case presents the same facts substantially asDriesbachv.National Bank,104 U.S. 52. To entitle the defendant to such relief as was given inFarmers' Mechanics'Bankv.Dearing, cited above, it should be made to appear by distinct averment that the note sued on includes interest stipulated for and not paid, as well as principal. That has not been done is this case.Judgment affirmed.Page 200