WILLIAMSPORT NAT. BANK v. KNAPP and another.

The record showed that at the trial certain oral testimony, therein stated, was offered by the plaintiffs in support of their allegations, was objected to by the defendant, the objection was overruled, and the defendant took exceptions. The record also showed that the defendant, for the purpose of proving that, at the time of the discounts in question, there were banks of issue, organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, allowed to receive interest on discounts at as high a rate as that received by the defendant, offered in evidence charters from the legislature of Pennsylvania of a number of banks, (the titles of which were given,) some of which were thereby expressly authorized to receive interest at such rates as might be agreed upon by the parties; and also offered in evidence a number of other bank charters, in connection withevidence that some of the bank-notes, without special authorization of law, in order 'to show that incorporated banks and banking companies in Pennsylvania issued notes of circulation, commonly called bank-notes, under their respective general corporate powers, and not by virtue of any special authorization of law to issue such notes; and to show that incorporated banks and banking companies in Pennsylvania, not specially prohibited from issuing such notes, are banks of issue within the meaning of the act of congress, by virtue of their incorporation and organization as banks or banking companies, and without any special authorization of law to issue such notes;' and the evidence so offered by the defendant was objected to by the plaintiffs, and admitted subject to their exception.

The record further showed that a verdict was returned for the plaintiffs, and that the circuit judge and the district judge signed a certificate that they were opposed in opinion upon the following questions arising at the trial:

'First. Whether, under the evidence, the defendant was legally authorized to take, receive, reserve, and charge on the loans or discounts made for the plaintiffs upon the notes, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt, offered and received in evidence on the part of the plaintiffs, at the rate of interest charged by the defendant, and paid by the plaintiffs, as shown in evidence, to-wit, at the rate of nine per centum per annum.

'Second. Whether, under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, a rate of interest or discount was limited for banks of issue, organized under state laws, at a rate equal to or exceeding that charged by the defendant to the plaintiffs, and whether the defendant was, under the evidence and the acts of congress, allowed to take, receive, reserve, and charge the rate so limited for the discounts made for the plaintiffs, to-wit, at the rate of nine per centum per annum.

'Third. Whether the decision of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, 'that there are no banks, nor have there been any such banks, in Pennsylvania, authorized to take and receive interest at a greater rate than six per cent.,' is binding and conclusive upon the judgment of the courts of the United States in determining the construction and effect in Pennsylvania of the acts of congress commonly called the 'Currency Acts,' and especially sections 5197 and 5198 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

'Fourth. Whether, upon the whole evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.'

Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs in the sum of $2,150.38, and the defendant sued out this writ of error.

Wm. H. Armstrong and C. La Rue Munson, for plaintiff in error.

H. C. McCormick and H. C. Parsons, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.