National Bank of Daingerfield v. Ragland
| Decision Date | 08 April 1901 |
| Docket Number | No. 200,200 |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF DAINGERFIELD, Plff. in Err. , v. G. W. RAGLAND |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. James M. Turner for plaintiff in error.
No brief filed for defendant in error.
At various times between January 1, 1895, and May 22, 1896, the defendant in error, G. W. Ragland, with sureties, executed promissory notes to the Daingerfield National Bank, for various sums of money loaned to said Ragland. The bank was a national banking association doing business in Daingerfield, Morris county, Texas. Each original note embraced not only the amount of the loan but interest to the date of maturity
Messrs. A. S. Worthington and B. F. Leighton for appellant.
than that allowed by law.
Certain of the notes were renewed from time to time, the additional interest for the extended period being added, calculated also at a usurious rate.
The first payment made upon any of the notes so executed was on November 1, 1896, and all the notes were fully paid prior to February 14, 1898.
On March 28, 1898, Ragland filed a petition in the district court of Morris county, Texas, to recover twice the amount of the interest so as aforesaid paid by him, basing his right to recover upon the provisions of § 5198 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. After deducting as an offset the amount of a note executed by Ragland which had been assigned to the bank by the payee thereof, there was found due to Ragland upon the cause of action stated in his petition the sum of $252.05; and for that amount with interest judgment was entered in favor of Ragland in October, 1898. On appeal to the court of civil appeals the judgment was affirmed, and a motion for rehearing was overruled. 51 S. W. 661. An application made to the supreme court of Texas for an allowance of a writ of error was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter the Chief Justice of the court of civil appeals allowed a writ of error, and the case is now here for review.
In the assignments of error contained in the record it is conceded by counsel for the plaintiff in error, and the record fully establishes, that the interest, the subject of this controversy, was paid to the plaintiff in error less than two years before Ragland commenced his action. The sole contention in this court is that the courts of Texas erroneously held that the limitation of the statute did not begin to run until the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Citizens' National Bank of Kansas v. Donnell
... ... St. 490; Osborn v. Bank, 175 Pa. St. 494; ... Stephens v. Bank, 88 Pa. St. 157; Marr v ... Marr, 110 Pa. St. 64; Bank v. Ragland, 181 U.S ... 45; Earnest v. Haskins, 100 Pa. St. 551. (6) The ... transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant, ... beginning in 1892 ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Tishomingo v. Latham
...the payment of interest. First National Bank v. Lasater, 196 U.S. 115, 25 S. Ct. 206, 49 L. Ed. 408; Daingerfield National Bank v. Ragland, 181 U.S. 45, 21 S. Ct. 536, 45 L. Ed. 738; Brown v. Marion National Bank, 169 U.S. 416, 18 S. Ct. 390, 42 L. Ed. 801; Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank v......
-
First Nat. Bank v. Latham
... ... national bank, the return on the summons ... showing the date of its receipt and that the officer executed ... First National Bank v. Lasater, 196 U.S. 115, 25 ... S.Ct. 206, 49 L.Ed. 408; Daingerfield National Bank v ... Ragland, 181 U.S. 46, 21 S.Ct. 536, 45 L.Ed. 738; ... Brown v. Marion ... ...
-
Hershey v. Anderson
...plaintiff had agreed to pay. Brown v. Marion National Bank, 169 U. S. 416, 18 S.Ct. 390, 42 L.Ed. 801; National Bank of Daingerfield v. Ragland, 181 U.S. 45, 21 S.Ct. 536, 45 L.Ed. 738; Lindon v. Morgan County National Bank, 275 Ky. 556, 122 S.W.2d 126. This is true even though the original......