Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

“ On that point, and on the question whether what was done amounted to compounding within the meaning of the Missouri statute, we follow the state court. Union Nat. Bank v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. 163 U.S. 325, 331, 41 L. ed. 177, 179, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1039. Therefore, since the interest charged and received by the plaintiff was compounded more than once a year, it was at a rate greater than was allowed by U.S. Rev. Stat. § 5197, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 3493, and it was forfeited. The suggestions as to the 12 per cent charge on overdrafts do not seem to us to need answer. ”

“ Stat. 1901, p. 3493) , taking, receiving, or charging 'a rate of interest greater than is allowed by the preceding section, when knowingly done, shall be deemed a forfeiture of the entire interest which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt carries with it, or which has been agreed to be paid thereon.' The Revised Statutes of Missouri fix 6 per cent as the rate of interest in the absence of agreement (§ 3705) , but allow parties to agree in writing for not over 8 per cent (§ 3706) . ”

“ We perceive no warrant in the statute or the cases for the contention that the bank, when it brings the action and is met by the plea of usury, may avoid the forfeiture imposed by Rev. Stat. § 5198, U.S.C.omp. Stat. ”