Whenever a forfeiture has been incurred it may be remitted by the state by legislative act,1 and it seems by borrowing money from the bank after a forfeiture has been incurred.2 The forfeiture for insolvency is waived where the bank resumes payment before a suit is begun.3 A forfeiture is not waived by laches,4 but the limitation as to a suit for forfeiture in the case of a national bank is five years.5 The legislature may suspend proceedings already begun, and if the suspension of the proceeding is conditional, the bank by performing the condition has contracted with the state.6 The court itself, it has been held, may, in effect, waive the forfeiture by refusing, in its discretion, to enforce it.7

11 See last case and State v. Seneca Co. Bank, 5 Ohio St. 171. But usurious loans were not ground for forfeiture State v. Comrn. Bank, 10 Ohio, 535. Contra, Commonwealth v. Coram. Bank, 28 Pa. 383.

12State Bank v. State, 1 Blackf. 270.

13 See last case.

14 Attorney-General v. Oakland Co. Bank, Walk. Ch. 90.

15 Bank Comm'rs v. Central Bank, 5 R L 12.

16 See note 10, supra.

17 See sec 5239, Rev. Stat

18 Trenholm v. Comm. Nat Bank, 38 Fed. R. 323.

19 People v. Niagara Bank, 6 Cow. 196.

20 See note 8, supra.

1 Bank of Missouri v. Bredow, 31 Mo. 523; Atchafalaya Bank v. Dawson, 13 La. 497; Nevitt v. Bank of Port Gibson, 6 Smedes & M. 513; State v. Bank of Charleston, 2 Mo-MuL 439.

2 State v. Real Estate Bank, 5 Ark. 595. This seems to be the species of estoppel noticed by the United States Supreme Court in the "sugar bounty " case.