Hathaway v. First National Bank of Cambridge was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1891. The case involved a dispute between the First National Bank of Cambridge and the estate of the late William Hathaway. The bank had loaned Hathaway money to purchase a farm, and when he died, the bank sought to collect the debt from his estate. The estate argued that the loan was usurious and thus unenforceable. The Supreme Court held that the loan was not usurious and that the bank was entitled to collect the debt from the estate. The Court reasoned that the loan was not usurious because the interest rate was not excessive and the bank had not taken advantage of Hathaway's financial situation. The Court also noted that the loan was secured by a mortgage on the farm, which provided additional protection for the bank. The decision in Hathaway v. First National Bank of Cambridge established that a loan is not usurious if the interest rate is not excessive and the lender has not taken advantage of the borrower's financial situation. The decision also established that a loan secured by a mortgage is not usurious, even if the interest rate is higher than the legal limit.

In the case of Hathaway v. First National Bank of Cambridge, Justice Holmes wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was too broad and failed to consider certain facts. He believed that if the bank had been aware of all relevant facts at the time it made its loan, then it would have acted differently than what was alleged by Mr. Hathaway in his complaint against them. Furthermore, Justice Holmes argued that there were other factors involved such as whether or not Mr. Hathaway had misrepresented himself when applying for a loan from the bank and whether or not he could be held liable for any losses incurred due to his actions prior to receiving funds from said institution - both issues which were left unresolved by this ruling according to him. In conclusion, Justice Holmes felt that while some aspects of this case may have warranted an award for damages on behalf of Mr. Hathaway, others should also be taken into consideration before making such a determination; thus why he dissented with regards to this particular matter