Holden v. Trust Company
| Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
| Citation | 25 L.Ed. 567,100 U.S. 72 |
| Parties | HOLDEN v. TRUST COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William A. Meloy for the appellant.
Mr. Enoch Totten and Mr. Thomas H. Talbot for the appellee.
This record presents no ground for controversy as to the facts, and only one legal point that requires consideration. But for the importance of that point as a matter of loca law we should dispose of the case without a formal opinion.
On the 13th of October, 1870, at the city of Washington, Charles H. Holden, the appellant, made his promissory note of that date to John B. Wheeler, or order, for $5,000, payable four years from date at the Bank of Washington, with interest at the rate of ten per cent, payable semi-annually. On the same day he executed to David L. Eaton a deed of trust of certain property in the city of Washington, to secure the payment of the principal and interest of the note as they should respectively fall due. On the 19th of October, 1870, Wheeler indorsed and delivered the note to the appellee, Talbot, who paid him at the time, as the consideration of the transfer, the sum of $5,000. Talbot thereupon became a bona fide holder of the instrument. On the 28th of July, 1873, he executed to his co-appellee—the Savings and Trust Company—his promissory note for $1,500, payable at ninety days, and pledged the note of Holden as collateral security. Talbot's note is still unpaid. The interest on Holden's note was paid up to the 13th of April, 1873, and $75 on account of interest was paid subsequently. The principal and the residue of the interest are unpaid. Eaton, the trustee in the deed of trust, died on the 13th of February, 1873. On the 30th of September, 1871, Holden conveyed the trust premises to John Chester, one of the defendants. This bill was filed on the 18th of November, 1874. It prayed that a trustee should be appointed in place of Eaton; that the successor so appointed should be directed to execute the trust; and for general relief. The court below found, among other things, that Holden was indebted to Talbot on the note in the sum of $5,000, 'with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the 13th of April, 1873, less the sum of $75,' and that the Savings and Trust Company had a lien on the debt for $1,500, and interest from April 13, 1875. It was decreed that a new trustee should be, and he was thereby, appointed, and that in default of payment of the amount due from Holden, and the costs, the trustee should proceed to sell the premises described in the deed of trust, &c. From this decree Holden appealed to this court.
The note of Holden, including days of grace, matured on the 16th of October, 1874. Up to that time there can be no doubt that the rate of interest to be paid was that called for by the note. But what is the rate chargeable thereafter? The court below allowed continuously the rate expressed in the note. Was this correct? This is the question we are called upon to decide.
The subject of interest in its historical aspect was considered by this court in National Bank of the Commonwealth v. Mechanic's National Bank, 94 U. S. 437.
The statutory provisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Rothenberg
...a rate of interest until maturity but is silent regarding the rate after maturity, the legal rate applies. Holden v. Savings & Trust Co., 100 U.S. 72, 25 L.Ed. 567 (1879). Where a note leaves blank the rate of interest after maturity, the legal rate applies. Wieland v. Loon, 79 S.D. 608, 11......
-
Red Bud Realty Company v. South
... ... The ... insurance company answered, and by way of cross-complaint set ... up its notes and deed of trust, and asked for judgment and ... foreclosure. This cross-action was answered by South. By ... agreement of the parties a master was appointed to ... ...
-
Humphries v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie R. Co.
...court. The courts of the state and the federal courts sitting within the state should be in harmony upon this point. Both in Holden v. Trust Co., 100 U.S. 72 , and in Ohio v. Frank [103 U.S.] 697 , it was held that the question of interest is always one of local law. (Emphasis added). 137 U......
-
Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. v. Pratt
...S. S. Co. v. Merchant, 133 U.S. 375, 376, 10 S.Ct. 397, 33 L.Ed. 656. 14 Massachusetts Benefit Ass'n v. Miles, supra. 15 Holden v. Trust Co., 100 U.S. 72, 25 L.Ed. 567; Town of Ohio v. Frank, 103 U.S. 697, 26 L.Ed. 531; Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Harmon, 147 U.S. 571, 13 S.Ct. 557, 37 L.Ed......