9 Jackson v. Burke, 1 Dill. 311, Fed. Cas. No. 7,133; Ayer v. Hawkins, 19 Vt. 26: Williams v. Griffith, 5 Mees. & W. 300; Waugh v. Cope, 6 Mees. & W. 824; Murphy v. Webber, 61 Me. 478; Pond v. Williams, 1 Gray (Mass.) 630; Ramsay v. Warner, 97 Mass. 8; Beck v. Haas, 31 Mo. App. 180. But see Beck v. Haas, 111 Mo. 264, 20 S. W. 19, 33 Am. St. Rep. 516. See "Payment:," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 39; Cent. Dig. §§ 104-H4.

10 Offutt v. King, 1 MacArthur (D. C.) 312; Pearce v. Walker, 103 Ala. 250, 15 South. 568; Cremer v. Higginson, 1 Mason, 337, Fed. Cas. No. 3,383; Mc-Master v. Merrick, 41 Mich. 505, 2 N. W. 895. Nor can the creditor be compelled to change the application. Jefferson v. Church of St. Matthew, 41 Minn. 392, 43 N. W. 74; Seymour v. Marvin, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 80. -See "Payment," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 39; Cent. Dig. §§ 104-114.

11Devaynes v. Noble (Clayton's Case) 1 Mer. 572, 606. See "Payment," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 41; Cent. Dig. §§ 115-126.

12Pattison v. Hull, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 747. And see Bacon v. Brown, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 334, 4 Am. Dec. 640; Jones v. Benedict, 83 N. Y. 79; Heyward v. Lo-max, 1 Vera. 24; Prowse v. Wortbinge, 2 Brown & G. 107; Neal v. Allison, 50 Miss. 175; Gwinn v. Whitaker's Adm'x, 1 Har. & J. (Md.) 754; Dorsey v. Gassaway, 2 Har. & J. (Md.) 402, 3 Am. Dec. 557; Perot v. Cooper, 17 Colo. 80, 28 Pac. 391, 31 Am. St. Rep. 258; Robinson v. Doolittle, 12 Vt 246; Moore v. Kiff, 78 Pa. 96; Barrett v. Sipp, 50 Ind. App. 304, 98 N. E. 340. See "Payment:' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 41; Cent. Dig. §§ 115-126.

13 Field v. Holland, 6 Cranch, 27, 3 L. Ed. 136. And see Burks v. Albert, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 97, 20 Am. Dec. 209; Gardner v. Leck, 52 Minn. 522, 54 N. W. 746; Leeds v. Gifford, 41 N. J. Eq. 464, 5 Atl. 795; The D. B. Steel-man (D. C.) 48 Fed. 5S0; Stamford Bank v. Benedict, 15 Conn. 437; Hilton v. Burley, 2 N. H. 193; Cain v. Vogh, 138 Iowa, 631, 116 N. W. 786, 128 Am. St. Rep. 216. In a later case, under the same rule (the rule of equitable application), the payments were so applied as to operate beneficially to the sureties of the debtor, and against the creditor. United States v. Kirkpat-rick, 9 Wheat 737, 6 L. Ed. 199. If the money paid is the proceeds of a security given for one debt, it will be applied in payment of that debt in preference to an unsecured debt. Lee v. Manley, 154 N. C. 244, 70 S. E. 385. See "Payment," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 41; Cent. Dig. §§ 115-126.

that the payment will be applied according to the justice of the particular case, in view of all the circumstances.14 Such a rule is not very definite. Is it more equitable to give effect to the civil-law rule, and apply the payment as would be most beneficial to the debtor, or to follow the opposite rule, and consider the creditor's interests? The Minnesota court, in stating the rule, has thus qualified it: "It is true that, where the parties have not made any specific application of payments, courts will make it according to the justice and equity of the case; but in doing so they are governed by certain general and established rules, and are not at liberty to adopt their own notions of what may be just and equitable in each particular case." 15 One of these rules is that, where there is but one continuous account of several items, "the payments will be applied on the account according to the priority of time - that is, the first item on the debit side is discharged or reduced by the first item on the credit side;"16 and so, where there are several debts of equal dignity, a payment will generally be applied to the oldest.17 As we have seen, when we get beyond this, there is a conflict of opinion.18

14 Smith v. Loyd, 11 Leigh (Va.) 512, 37 Am. Dec. 621; Stone v. Seymour, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 19; White v. Trumbull, 15 N. J. Law, 314, 29 Am. Dec. 6S7; Allen v. Culver, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 284; Pierce v. Knight, 31 Vt. 701; Crompton v. Pratt, 105 Mass. 255. See "Payment;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 41; Cent. Dig. §§ 115-126.

15Hersey v. Bennett, 28 Minn. 8G, 9 N. W. 590, 41 Am. Rep. 271. And see Miller v. Miller, 23 Me. 22, 39 Am. Dec. 597; Bobe's Heirs v. Stickney, 36 Ala. 482. See "Payment," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 41; Cent. Dig. §§ 115-126.

16 Hersey v. Bennett, 28 Minn. 86, 9 N. W. 590, 41 Am. Rep. 271. And see Peale v. Grossman, 70 W. Va. 1, 73 S. E. 46, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1373. See "Payment," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 41; Cent. Dig. §§ 115-126.

17 Devaynes v. Noble (Clayton's Case), 1 Mer. 572; Hersey v. Bennett, 28 Minn. 86, 9 N. W. 590, 41 Am. Rep. 271; Miller v. Miller, 23 Me. 22, 39 Am. Dec. 597; Parks v. Ingram, 22 N. H. 283, 55 Am. Dec. 153; Pierce v. Knight, 31 Vt 701; Crompton v. Pratt, 105 Mass. 255; Smith v. Loyd, 11 Leigh (Va.) 512, 37 Am. Dec. 621; Hill v. Bobbins, 22 Mich. 475; Winnebago Mills v. Travis, 56 Minn. 480, 58 N. W. 36; Cushing v. Wyman, 44 Me. 121; Fair-child v. Holly, 10 Conn. 175; Truscott v. King, 6 N. Y. 147; Jones v. United States, 7 How. 681, 12 L. Ed. 870; United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, 6 L. Ed. 199; Emery v. Tichout, 13 Vt. 15; Frazer v. Miller, 7 Wash. 521, 35 Pac. 427; Sternberger v. Gowdy, 93 Ky. 14G, 19 S. W. 186; Sprague v. Hazenwinkle, 53 111. 419. In Kansas this rule yields to the rule that a payment will be applied to an unsecured rather than to a secured debt. State v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 81 Kan. 660, 106 Pac. 1040. 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 865. See "Payment," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 43; Cent. Dig. § 122.

18 Payment will be applied in extinguishment of a certain, rather than a contingent, liability (President, etc., of Niagara Bank v. Rosevelt, 9 Cow. [N. Y.] 409; President, etc., of Lank of Portland v. Brown, 22 Me. 295), and to

Where a partial payment on an interest-bearing debt exceeds the interest due, it must be applied first in discharge of the interest and the remainder in reduction of the principal; and if the payment is less than the interest, it is to be applied on the interest, but the remainder of interest is not to increase the principal.19