In accordance with the principle just stated, payments will be applied by the court to an unsecured or precarious debt, rather than to a secured one.37 It is also held, certainly if all payment will be applied to the interest rather than to the principal of a debt.39 A sole debt rather than a joint debt of the debtor will be treated as paid.40 Somewhat illogically it has been held, though most of the courts so holding, have been those which are generally disposed to favor the tendency of the Civil law to make the interest of the debtor the controlling principle, that where there has been made a payment, unappropriated by either party, to a creditor holding an interest bearing claim and one not bearing interest, the law will apply the payment to the former,41 and if the creditor holds two interest-bearing claims, to the one bearing the higher rate.42

35 They are collected and discussed in Pattison v. Hull, 9 Cow. 747.

36 Clark v. Boarman, 89 Md. 428, 43 Atl. 926; Frazier v. Lanahan, 71 Md. 131, 17 Atl. 940,17 Am. St. Rep. 516; Neal v. Allison, 50 Miss. 175; Pierce v. Sweet, 33 Pa. 151; Stanley v. Wcstrop, 16 Tex. 200; Paschall v. Pioneer Sav., etc., Co., 19 Tex. Civ. App. 102, 47 S. W. 98; Magarity v. Shipman, 82 Va. 784, 1 8. E. 109.

37 Schuelenburg v. Martin, 2 Fed. 747; In re American Paper Co., 255 Fed. 121; McCurdy v. Middleton, 82 Ala. 131, 137, 2 So. 721, 724; Bell v. Bell, 174 Ala. 446, 56 So. 926, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1203; California Nat. Bank v. Ginty, 108 Cal. 148, 41 Pac. 38; Chester v. Wheelwright, 15 Conn. 562, 567; Monson v. Meyer, 93 11I. App. 94, affd. 195 111. 142, 62 N. E. 827; Barbee v. Morris, 221 111. 382, 77 N. E. 589; Boyd v. Greer (Ind. App.), 123 N. E. 122; Hanson v. Manley, 72 Iowa, 48, 33 N. W. 357; First Nat. Bank v. Hollinsworth, 78 Iowa, 575, 43 N. W. 536, 6 L. R. A. 92; Illsly v. Grayson,

105 la. 685, 687, 75 N. W. 518; United States Ac. Co. v. State, 81 Kan. 660,

106 Pac. 1040, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 865; Bank of New Roads v. Kentucky Refining Co., 27 Ky. L. Rep. 645,85 S. W. 1103; Wood v. Callaghan, 61 Mich. 402, 28 N. W. 162, 1 Am. St. Rep. 597; the claims or items of account are equally secured or unsecured, and in some jurisdictions apparently without regard to differences in security, a payment unappropriated otherwise by debtor or creditor is applied to the earliest claim or item.38 A

Gardner v. Leek, 52 Minn. 522, 54 N. W. 746; Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Matthews, 188 Mo. App. 429, 174 S. W. 198; Smith v. Lewiston Steam Mill, 66 N. H. 613, 34 Atl. 153; Lester v. Houston, 101 N. C. 605, 8 S. . 366; Union Credit Assoc, v. Corson, 77 Or. 361, 149 Pac. 318. See also, Sanborn v. Stark, 31 Fed. 18; Stone Co. v. Rich, 160 N. C. 161, 75 S. E. 1077, Ann. Cas. 1914 C. 244. Cf. Cavanaugh v. Marble, 80 Conn. 389,68 Atl. 853,15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 127.

The contrary rule of the Civil law, which is supported by Story's Eq. Juris. Sec. 459c, is followed in some States. Gillard v. Huval, 22 La. Ann. 426; Clark v. Boarman, 89 Md. 428, 43 Atl. 926; Frazier v. Lanahan, 71 Md. 131, 17 Atl. 940, 17 Am. St. Rep. 516; Windsor v. Kennedy, 52 Miss. 164; Blackmore v. Granbery, 98 Tenn. 277, 39 S. W. 229. See also Pardee v. Markle, 111 Pa. St. 548, 555, 56 Am. Rep. 299. In Dunnington v. Kirk, 57 Ark. 595, 22 S. W. 430, it was held that a running account was so far a single debt that a payment would be applied to the items in the order of their priority and the creditor had no election.

" Clayton's Case, 1 Meriv. 529, 572; Toulmin v. Copland, 2 CI. & F. 681; Clayton's Case, 1 Meriv. 605; Goddard v. Hodges, 1 Cromp. & M. 33; Hooper v. Keay, 1 Q. B. D. 178; Kinnaird v. Webster, 10 Ch. Div. 139; Re Stenning, [1895] 2 Ch. 433; Jones v. United States, 7 How. 681, 12 L. Ed. 870; Marye v. Strouse, 6 Sawyer, 204, 215; In re American Paper Co., 255 Fed. 121; Moses v. Noble, 86 Ala. 407, 5 So. 181; Golden v. Conner, 89 Ala. 598, 8 So. 148; Mayer v. Gewin (Ala.), 76

So. 307; Lazarus v. Freidheim, 51 Ark. 371, 378, 11 S. W. 518; Goldsmith v. Lewine, 70 Ark. 516, 69 S. W. 308; Duncan v. Thomas, 81 Cal. 56, 22 Pac. 297; Ady & Crowe Merc. Co. v. Howard (Colo.), 176 Pac. 328; Tapper v. New Home Sewing Mach. Co., 22 Ind. App. 313, 53 N. . 202; Allen v. Brown, 39 la. 330; First Nat. Bank v. Hollins-worth, 78 Iowa, 575, 43 N. W. 536, 6 L. R. A. 92; Sternberger v. Gowdy, 93 Ky. 146, 19 S. W. 186; Houeye v. Henkel, 115 La. 1066, 40 So. 460; Milliken v. Tufts, 31 Me. 497, 500; Lehigh Coal & Nav. Co. v. McLeod, 114 Me. 427, 96 Atl. 736; Worthley v. Emerson, 116 Mass. 374; Egremont v. Benjamin, 125 Mass. 15; Grasser, etc., Co. v. Rogers, 112 Mich. 112, 70 N. W. 445, 67 Am. St. Rep. 3&9; Winnebago Paper Mills v. Travis, 56 Minn. 480, 58 N. W. 36; Board of County Commissioners v. Citizens' Bank, 67 Minn. 236, 69 N. W. 912; Duffy v. Kilroe (Miss.), 76 So. 681; Goetz v. Piel, 26 Mo. App. 634, 642; Smith v. Lewiston Steam Mill, 66 N. H. 613, 34 Atl. 153; Doherty v. Cotter, 68 N. H. 37, 38 Atl. 499; Thompson v. St. Nicholas Nat. Bank, 113 N. Y. 325, 333, 21 N. E. 57; National, etc., Bank v. Seaboard Bank, 114 N. Y. 28, 20 N. E. 632, 11 Am. St. Rep. 612; Perry v. Booth, 67 N. Y. App. D. 235, 73 N. Y. S. 216; Stanwix v, Leonard, 125 N. Y. App. D. 299, 109 N. Y. S. 804; Raymond v. Newman, 122 N. C. 52,54,29 S. E. 353; Patterson v. Bank of British Columbia, 26 Ore. 509, 521, 38 Pac. 817, 820; Hollister v. Davis, 54 Pa. St. 508; Briggs v. Titus, 7 R. I. 441; Blackmore v. Granbery, 98 Tenn. 277, 39 S. W. 229; Willis v. Mclntyre, 70 Tex. 34, 7 S. W. 594, 8 Am. St. Rep. 574; Pierce v.

A payment will never be applied to illegal items or claims unless such application is directed by the debtor.43