In the absence of other statutory provisions, banks are governed by the laws as to the charging of interest which are applicable to individuals.1 But a different rate may be fixed by the charter of the bank,2 and banks may be granted, by special charter, the right to take more than the legal rate of interest, and such legislation would not be special.3 Yet where the charter permits a rate as agreed upon, it is not permissible for the bank to charge more than the legal rate.4 Where the charter prohibits the charging of more than a certain rate, the reservation of a greater rate is unlawful.5 But the passing of a general law upon the subject of interest does not repeal the rate fixed for the bank by the charter under which it is organized.6 A repeal of a higher rate necessarily applies only to contracts thereafter made.7

13Appeal of Conyngham, 57 Pa. 474

14 Fleming v. Northampton Bank, Fed. Cas. No. 4862a; Ouderkirk v. Central Nat. Bank, 119 N. Y. 263; As to evidence of want of care, see Erie Bank v. Smith, 3 Brewst. 9.

15 Jenkins v. Nat. Village Bank, 58 Ma 275.

16Girard Bank v. Richards, 4 Phila. 250.

1 Bank of Metropolis v. New England Bank, 1 How. 234; Kelly v. Phelan, 5 Dill. 228; Baltimore, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 18 Md. 372; Wood v. Boylstbn Bank, 129 Mass.

358; Miller v. Farmers' Bank, 30 Md. 392.

2 Armstrong v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 41 Fed. R. 234; Masonic Sav. Bank v. Bangs, 84 Ky. 135; Teu-tonia Nat. Bank v. Loeb, 27 La. Ann. 110; Neponset Bank v. Le-land, 5 Met 259; Duncan v. Bren-nan, 83 N. Y. 487. A bank may assert both a general lien and one by special contract. Cockrell v. Joyce, 62 Ark. 216.

3 Bank of Montreal v. White, 154 U. S. 660

4 Biebinger v. Continental Bank, 99 U. S. 143