188 FEDERAL REPORTER �reason that, under the circumstances, no interest was recov- erable upon the note, and that it was error in the judge to instruct the jury otherwise. �It is admitted that more than the legal rate of interest was chargea and received by the plaintiff for the period which elapsed between the date and matui'ity of the note, and the question is whether this subjects the plaintif to a forfeiture of the interest which acerued afterwards. �The National Currency Act furnishes a clear answer to this question. After fixing the rate of interest to be taken by national banks at that allowed by the local law, the thirtieth section of that act (Eev. St. § 5198) enacts: "And the know- ingly taking, receiving, reserving or charging a rate of inter- est greater than aforesaid shall be held and adjudged to be a forfeiture of the entire interest which the note, bill or other evidence of debt carries toith it, or which bas been agreed to be paid thereon;" and it is further provided that, where exces- sive interest has been paid, twice the amount may be recovered by an action commenced within two years. �The "entire" interest which the note "carries with it" is forfeited; and, if this means ail the intei-est which accrues upon it, as I think it clearly does, it is.difficult to uuderstand how any part of it is recoverable. By the operation of the act an usurious contract is inherently vicious, so that it can- not "carry" any interest "with it;" hence it would inade- quately effcctuate the intent of the act to hold that such a contract is purged of its taint and is invested with a capacity denied to it Ijefore by the f allure of the debtor to pay the debt, evidenced l)y it at maturity. �This viow of the effect of the act of congress is not ineon- sistent with the opinion of the court in Barnet v. The Nat. Bank, 8 Otto, 555, as was urged in the argument, but is in entire harmony with it. There it was sought to set ofï usurious interest paid upon a series of renewed bills, and also twice the amount of such interest, and it was held that the only remedy of the debtor was a penal action, as provided by the last clause of section 30. In expounding this section the ��� �
