162 FBDEBAL BBPOBTEB. �illegal consideration pervaded the whole Babsequent series of notes. Furthermore, upon every ffesh renewal, interest was charged upon the UBurious interest which hadentered intothe prier notes as principal. Thus the rate was but nominally reduced to 6 per cehtnin, for with reference to the amount legally due the rate was in excess thereof. It appears, there- fore, from the admissions upon this record, that the bank, from first to last, persisted in its usurious charges. �In Barnet v. The National Bank, supra, 558, it was declared that where illegal interest bas been knowingly stipulated for, but not paid, there only the sum lent, without interest, can be recovered. And in the First Nat. Bank of Uniontown v. Stauffer, 1 Fed. Eep. 187, it was held by this court that where a usurious rate of interest had been paid a national bank upon the discount of a note, no interest accruing after the Tjiaturity of the notecould be recovered, but only its face amount. Judge McKennan there says : "By the operation of the act a usurious contract' is inherently vicious, so that it cannot carry any interest with it." The authorities, there- fore, are decisive against the right of the plaintiff here to recover any interest whatever upon the usurious transactions. It is to be added, however, that one of the notes in suit in- cludes an item of indebtedness of |102 growing out of an independent matter. �Upon the demurrer, and under the stipulation of the parties, let final judgment be entered for the plaintifi, — the judgment to include — First, the face ainount of the original notes, to- wit, |6,000, without interest; and, second, the sum of $102, with interest on the latter sum, to be computed by the clerk. ��� �
