Driesbach v. National Bank
Cases that cite this one
45 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- First National Bank of Morristown v. Hunter (Tenn. 1902)
- Meadow Brook National Bank v. Recile (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1969)
- Citizens Bridge Co. v. Guerra (Tex. App. 1952)
- John R. Alley & Co. v. Federal Nat. Bank (10th Cir. 1942)
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. John R. Alley & Co. (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1940)
- Lowery v. First Nat. Bank of Oneonta (Ala. 1940)
- First Nat. Bank of Oneonta v. Lowery (Ala. 1937)
- Owens v. National Bank of John A. Black (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1933)
- Jones v. Moore (Ala. 1924)
- J. Allen Smith & Co. v. Montgomery (Ala. 1923)
- Lindberg v. Burton (N.D. 1918)
- Bank of Tuttle v. Gordon (Okla. 1916)
- Anderson v. Tatro (Okla. 1914)
- Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1909)
- McCarthy v. First National Bank of Rapid City (S.D. 1909)
- Lorentzen v. Warner (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1906)
- Franklin Opera House Co. v. Armstrong (1st Cir. 1904)
- Citizens Nat. Bank v. Forman's Assignee (Ky. Ct. App. 1901)
- Lloyd v. Massachusetts Accident Co. (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1939)
- McCollum v. Hamilton National Bank (Supreme Court of the United States 1938)
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Metropolitan Nat. Bank (D. Minn. 1932)
- Portland Building Co. v. State Bank (Or. 1924)
- Lowell v. Merchants' Nat. Bank (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1922)
- Planters National Bank of Virginia v. Wysong & Miles Co. (N.C. 1919)
- Mitchell v. Joplin National Bank (Mo. Ct. App. 1918)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.