The right of the debtor to direct the application ceases as soon as the payment is made,7 because having once made payment unconditionally he cannot thereafter revoke his act and v. Hodgson, 6D.M.&G. 474;Thompson v. Hudson, L. R. 6 Ch. 320; Korbly v. Springfield Inst, for Sav., 245 U. S. 330, 38 S. Ct. 88, 62 L. Ed. 000; Manning v. The Peerless, 80 Fed. 942; Pearoe v. Walker, 103 Ala. 250, 15 So. 538; Hanson v. Cordano, 96 Cal. 441, 31 Pac. 457; Perot v. Cooper, 17 Colo. 80, 28 Pac. 391, 31 Am. St. Rep. 258; Cavanaugh v. Marble, 80 Conn. 389, 68 Atl. 853, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 127; Plain v. Roth, 107 111. 588; Terhune v. Colton, 12 N. J. Eq. 232; Koehler v. Bierbaum (Ky.), 122 S. W. 524; Lauten v. Rowan, 59 N. H. 215; Stone v. Seymour, 15 Wend. 19; Moose v. Marks, 116 N. C. 785, 21 S. E. 561; Pardee v. Markle, 111 Pa. 548, 5 Atl. 36, 56 Am. Rep. 299; Mulherin v. Stan-sell, 70 S. Car. 568, 50 S. E. 497; Robinson v. Doolittle, 12 Vt. 246; Roakes v. Bailey, 55 Vt. 542.

In Adams Express Co. v. Black, 62 Ind. 128, it was held that the fact that the debtor's payment was the exact sum due on one account was not of itself sufficient to show a direction by the debtor to apply the payment to that account. But this coincidence between the amount of the payment and one of the debts is certainly a strong circumstance tending to show the debtor's intention. Manyatts p. White, 2 Stark. 102; Tayloe v. Sandi-ford, 7 Wheat. 13, 5 L. Ed. 384; Boyd v. Watertown Agricultural Ins. Co., 20 Col. App. 28, 76 Pac. 986; Robert v. Garnie, 3 Caines, 14.

7 Anonymous, 8 Mod. 236; Goddard v. Cox, 2 Strange, 1194; Manning v. Westerne, 1 Vernon, 606; Holloway v. White-Dunham Shoe Co., 151 Fed. 216, 80 C. C. A. 568, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 704; In re Lindau, 183 Fed. 608; McCurdy v. Middleton, 82 Ala. 131, 2 So. 721; Pearce v. Walker, 103 Ala. 250, 15 So. 568; Lasarus o. Freidheim, 51 Ark. 371, 11 S. W. 518; Cal. Civ. Code, Sec.1479; Mont. Rev. Codes (1908), Sec.4928; California Bank t». Webb, 94 N. Y. 467; Wanamaker v. Powers, 102 N. Y. App. D. 485, 93 N. Y. S. 19; Long v. Miller, 93 N. C. 233; S. Dak. Comp. L. (1913), Sec. 1150; St. John v. Rykert, 10 Can. Sup. Ct. 278, and cases in this section passim. But see Petty v. Dill, 53 Ala. 641; Huffman v. Cauble, 86 Ind. 591.

make it conditional. If, on a fair construction of the circum stances, the debtor has given no indication how a payment voluntarily made by him should be applied the presumption is made that he thereby assents to such application as to creditor may desire to make, the creditor may then apply to payment to any debt which is due,8 or he may distribute among all or several of such debts or items.9. The creditor allowed to make the appropriation in the way most advant geous for himself without regard to the interest of the debtor Thus the payment may be applied to an unsecured claim,10

8 Wilkinson v. Sterne, 9 Mod. 427; Hall v. Wood, 14 East, 243, note; Mills v. Fowkes, 5 Bing. N. C. 455, 461; Bosanquet v. Wray, 2 Marshall, 319; Williams v. Griffith, 5 N. A W. 300; United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, 6 L. Ed. 199; Marye v. Strouse, 6 Sawyer, 204; Hendricks v. Schmidt, 68 Fed. 425, 15 C. C. A. 504; Holloway & Bro. v. White-Dunham Shoe Co., 151 Fed. 216, 80 C. C. A. 568, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 704; Cremer v. Higginson, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,383; Callahan v. Boazman, 21 Ala. 246, 251; McCurdy v. Middleton, 82 Ala. 131, 2 So. 721; Lyon v. Bass, 76 Ark. 534, 89 8. W. 849; Byrnes v. Claffey, 69 Cal. 120, 10 Pac. 321; Petroutsa v. H. C. Schrader Co. (Fla.), 80 So. 486; Home v. Planters' Bank, 32 Ga. 1; Lowenstein v. Meyer, 114 Ga. 709, 40 S. E. 726; Shull v. Lawrence (Ida.), 186 Pac. 246; Wellman v. Miner, 179 111. 326, 53 N. E. 609; Keairnes v. Durst, 110 Iowa, 114, 81 N. W. 238; First Presb. Church v. Santy, 52 Kans. 462, 34 Pac. 974; Henry Bill Pub. Co. v. Utley, 155 Mass. 366, 29 N. E. 635; People v. Grant, 139 Mich. 26, 102 N. W. 226; Hawver v. Ingalls, 93 Minn. 371, 101 N. W. 604; Cox v. Sloan, 158 Mo. 411, 430, 57 S. W. 1052, 1134; Bean v. Brown, 54 N. H. 395; Mack v. Colleran, 136 N. Y. 617, 32 N. E. 604; Long v. Miller, 93 N. C. 233; Swisher v. McWhinney, 64 Ohio St. 343, 350, 60 N. E. 565; Chestnut St. Trust, etc., Co. v. Hart, 217 F St. 506, 66 Atl. 870; Sanborn v. Col 63 Vt. 590, 22 Atl. 716,14 L. R. A. 20 Simpson v. Combes (Wash.), 182 Pa 566; Hanly v. Potts, 52 W. Va. 263,4 S. E. 218; Farr v. Weaver (W. Va.), S S. E. 395; Coxe v. Milbrath, 110 Wi 499, 86 N. W. 174; McDonald v. Peel 17 U. C. Q. B. 270; Mayberry v. Hun1 34 N. Brunsw. 628. In Louisiana th appropriation made by the credito will not be binding on the debtor un less it has been accepted by him Slaughter v. Milling, 15 La. Ann 526.

9 Blackman v. Leonard, 15 La. Ann 59; Kennedy v. Drake, 225 Mass. 303: 114 N. E. 310; Beck v. Haas, 111 Mo. 264, 20 S. W. 19, 33 Am. St. Rep. 516; Young v, Alford, 118 N. C. 215, 23 S. E. 973; Bishop v. T. Ryan Const. Co. (Wash.), 180 Pac. 126. But see Sanborn v. Cole, 53 Vt. 590.

10 Re Sherry, 25 Ch. D. 692; Smith v. Vaughan, 78 Ala. 201; Lewis v. Hartford Silk Mfg. Co., 56 Conn. 25, 12 Atl. 637; Koch v. Roth, 150 111. 212, 37 N. E. 317; Wilkes v. Kitchen (Ky.), 218 S. W. 718; Upham v. Lefavour, 11 Mete. 174; Harding v. Tifft, 75 N. Y. 461; Vick v. Smith, 83 N. C. 80; Wagner's Appeal, 103 Pa. 185; Wardlaw v. Troy OU Mill, 74 S. Car. 368, 54 S. E. 658, 114 Am. St. Rep. 1004; Jeffers v. Pease, 74 Vt. 215, 52 Atl. 422; Stephens v. Boisseau, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 437.

to one which is unenforceable because of the Statute of Frauds,11 or the Statute of Limitations.12