160 FEDBEAL BEPORTEB. �interest chargea at the several renewals, down to that of April 6, 1877, inclusive, in the case of one of the series, and down to that of May 5, 1877, inclusive, of the other series, was at the rate of 10 par centum, and it was paid to the bank, ex- cept that in three instances the discount in whole or part was included in the new notes as part of the principal. The in- terest charged atthe several subsequent renewals, down un- til that of April 18, 1879, inclusive, of the one series, and that of February 15, 1879, inclusive, of the other series, (with a single exception, where 6 per centum was paid,) was at the rate of 9 per centum, which was sometimes paid to the bank and sometimes added into the new notes as principal. At the renewals on July 19, 1879, of the one series, and on May 19, 1879, of the other series, and at all renewals thereafter made, the interest charged was at the rate of 6 per centum, the rate authorized by the Pennsylvania act regulating inter- est, and on each occasion was included in the new note as part of its principal. �The demurrer admits that upon the discount of the original notes the bank charged and received usurious interest, and that at the several renewals, down until those of May 19 and July 19, 1879, the bank charged more than legal interest, part of which, as already mentioned, was paid the bank, and part included in the notes given in renewal. The controversy relates to the amount recoverable by the bank in view of the provisions of sections 5197 and 5198 of the Revised Statutes. The former section limits the rate of interest chargeable by a national bank to that allowed by the local law, and the latter declares that "the taking, receiving, reserving, or charging a rate of interest greater than is allowed by the preceding sec- tion, 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 bas been agreed to be paid thereon ; " and in case the unlawf ul rate bas been paid, a pen- alty of twice the amount thereof is inflicted. The pleadings suggest three questions for solution : �3 . Can the defendant set off against the plaintiff 's claim ��� �
