Eastwood v. Kennedy

Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. To the plaintiff’s demand, the defendant filed a claim in bar, for usurious interest alleged to have been paid by him; and the ground of dispute has turned upon the availability of this defence. The plaintiff insists that by the provisions of the Act of Congress of 1870, ch. 59, regulating the rate of interest in the District of Columbia, and prescribing the right of recovering back the whole interest, where usurious interest has been paid; if a suit therefor, is brought within the designated period, the claim of the defendant is barred by the statutory limitation. The defendant, on the contrary, contends that his claim is not subject to the limitation prescribed by the Act, in a proceeding within this jurisdiction for its recovery, where a different and longer period for the limitation of actions governs — that the limitation is one of local policy, affecting merely the remedy but not the debt itself.

The eighth prayer of the plaintiff, and the third prayer of the defendant, present these different and respective propositions, upon which the controversy between the parties is made to depend. A preliminary question has been presented, as to whether the Act of Congress was properly before the Circuit Court. The Act of Congress was of such public nature, the regulation of the rate of interest for the District of Columbia, that the Circuit Court could take judicial notice of it, wherever the Courts of the United States would have done so. By the 47th sec. of 37th Art. of the Code, the printed volume purporting to contain the statutes of the United States, is made evidence thereof without further proof.

The Act establishes for the District by the first section, the legal rate of interest at six per cent. The.second section permits parties to stipulate in writing for any rate not exceeding ten per cent. The third section forfeits the whole interest under any parol contract, providing for a greater rate than six per ⁵⁷¹ cent., or written contract stipulating for more than ten. per cent. Differing in this respect from the law of this State, Code, Art. 95, which only forfeits the excess over the legal rate.

The fourth section provides for the recovery of all the interest paid, where more has been exacted than allowed by the Act, provided suit to recover the same be brought within one year after such payment. The defendant’s account in bar, is for alleged usurious interest paid to the plaintiff at the sundry times stated therein, and his third prayer claims to be allowed lor the usurious interest over the rate of six per cent. The Act of Congress allows as high as ten per cent, interest, where it is so stipulated in writing — otherwise six per cent, is prescribed as the rate — neither the account nor any testimony in the record shows, whether the legal rate of interest