What constitutes a final appropriation by the creditor is not wholly clear. There is no doubt that if the creditor communicates to the debtor in any way a decision to make a particular appropriation, his right is completely and finally exercised.28 So bringing an action on the remaining debts or items necesarily is an election to appropriate a payment to the claims omitted from the suit.29 But where the creditor makes a book entry which is not communicated to the debtor, the matter is not so clear. The English law is well settled that in such a case the creditor is not bound by his own entry and may, if it subsequently is for his interest so to do, make a different application; 30 but this principle, though also stated in one or two American cases,31 does not seem to be universally admitted.32 Though the creditor may not be conclusively bound by an entry not communicated to the debtor, it does not follow that such an entry may not be evidence in the creditor's favor that he made an application before controversy,33

24 Haynee v. Waite, 14 Cal. 446 (Cf. Cal. Civ. Code, Sec. 1479); Plummer v. Erskine, 58 Me. 59; People v. Grant, 139 Mich. 26, 28, 102 N. W. 226; Sanford v. VanArsdall, 53 Hun, 70, 6 N. Y. S. 494; Jenkins v. Beal, 70 N. C. 440; Thatcher v. Tillory, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 327, 70 S. W. 782; Pierce v. Knight, 31 Vt. 701; Fraser v. Miller, 7 Wash. 521, 35 Pac. 427.

24a Cal. Civ. Code, Sec.1479; Los Angeles Trust & Sav. Bank v. Forve (Cal. App.), 187 Pac. 438; Mont. Rev. Codes (1908), Sec. 4928; S. Dak. Comp. L. (1913), Sec. 1150.

25 Hutchinson v;. Heyworth, 9 A. A E. 375; Yates v. Hoppe, 9 C. B. 541; The Asiatic Prince, 108 Fed. 287, 47 C. C. A. 325; Pearce t;. Walker, 103 Ala. 250, 15 So. 568; Flynn v. Seale, 2 Cal. App. 665, 84 Pac. 263; Plummer v. Erskine, 58 Me. 59; People v. Grant, 139 Mich. 26, 102 N. W. 226; Pond v.

O'Connor, 70 Minn. 266, 73 N. W. 159, 248; Louis v. Bauer, 33 N. Y. App. D. 287, 53 N. Y. S. 985; Kann v. Kann, 259 Pa. 583, 103 Atl. 369; Wait v. Homestead Bg. Assoc. (W. Va.), 95 S. E. 203.

26 Steiner v. Jeffries, 118 Ala. 573, 24 So. 37; Bird v. Benton, 127 Ga. 371, 56 S. E. 450; Flarsheim v. Brestrup, 43 Minn. 298, 45 N. W. 438.

27 Sweeney v. Pratt, 70 Conn. 274, 39 Atl. 182, 66 Am. St. 101; Baker v. Smith, 44 La. Ann. 925, 11 So. 585; and see cases in the preceding note.

28 Simson v. Ingham, 2 B. & C. 65; Hooper v. Keay, 1 Q. B. D. 178; Cory Bros. & Co. v. The Mecca, [1897] A. C. 286, 292; United States v. Bradbury, 2 Ware, 146; People v. Grant, 139 Mich. 26, 102 N. W. 226; Reynolds v. Patten, 10 N. Y. Misc. 155, 30 N. Y. S. 1050.

29 Haynes v. Waite, 14 Cal. 446; Starrett v. Barber, 20 Me. 457.