Penrose v. Hart

Penrose v. Hart. Application of payments. Mode of applying partial payments on a bond bearing interest. On a rule to show cause why the judgment confessed by warrant of attorney in this case should not be opened, Fisher stated, that several partial *3791 Payments ka<^ been made by the defendant, *which the plaintiff had J applied first to the discharge of the arrearages of the interest; whereas, he insisted, that it ought first to have been deducted from the principal debt. But— Lewis, for the plaintiff, insisted, that the practice was the same at the present day, and appealed to the attorneys in court, who confirmed his assertion. See Tracy v. Wikoff, ante, p. 124 and the cases there cited. [MAJORITY — Shippen, President,] Shippen, President, said, that the practice had been otherwise ; and he thought with great reason and propriety. He remembered to have heard of an old decision when Logan was Chief Justice, in which it was expressly settled, that money paid on account of a bond, should first be applied to discharge the interest due at the time of the payment, and the residue, if any, credited toward satisfaction of the principal. By this rule, the gentlemen of the bar had uniformly governed their calculations, before the revolution. James Logan was appointed Chief Justice. of Pennsylvania, by Lieutenant-governor Gordon, on the 10th of August 1731. 3 Colonial Records, 412. He resigned on the 6th August 1739, and was succeeded by Jeremiah Langhome, 4 Id. 348.