It is obvious that under the English rule allowing the creditor a right to direct the application of a payment even after litigation has begun, there is small place for the rule that in the absence of appropriation by the debtor or by the creditor, the court itself will make the application. In the case of current accounts, however, the English law seems almost though not quite conclusively to appropriate payments to the oldest items. Whether this is due to an assumption that such an intention on the part of the debtor is necessarily to be implied or whether the court deems that application the only one consistent with equity in the absence of express direction from the debtor, is not very clear, and is perhaps not material.44

Knight, 31 Vt. 701; Gifford v. Thomas' Estate, 62 Vt. 34, 19 Atl. 1088; Pope v. Transparent Ice Co., 91 Va. 79, 20 8. E. 940; Kelso v. Russell, 33 Wash. 474, 74 Pac. 551; Rowan v. Chenoweth, 56 W. Va. 325, 47 S. E. 80; Sleeper v. Goodwin, 67 Wis. 577, 31 N. W. 335; Paris Board of Education v. Citizens, etc., Ins. Co., 30 Up. Can. C. P. 132.

39 Coleman v. Smith, 55 Ala. 368; Los Angeles v. City Bank, 100 Cal. 18, 34 Pac. 510; Becker v. Shaw, 120 Ga. 1003, 48 S. E. 408; McCormick v. Mitchell, 57 Ind. 248; Keigher v. St. Paul, 69 Minn. 78, 72 N. W. 54; Anderson v. Perkins, 10 Mont. 154, 25 Pac. 92; Armijo v. Henry, 14 N. Mex. 181, 89 Pac. 305, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 275; Shepard v. New York, 216 N. Y. 251, 110 N. E. 435, Ann. Cas. 1917 C. 1062; Merchants' Bank v. Freeman, 15 Hun, 359; Langton v. Kops (N. Dak.), 171N. W. 334; Moore v. Kiff, 78 Pa. 96.

40 Adams v. Tucker, 6 Colo. App. 393, 40 Pac. 783; Livermore v. Claridge,

33 Me. 428; Hutches v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 60. But where the money comes from two persons and both owe one debt and one owes another debt, application must be to the former debt. Swisher v. McWhinney, 64 Ohio St. 343, 350, 60 N. E. 565.

41 Blanton v. Rice, 5 T. B. Mon. 253; Pargoud v. Griffing, 10 La. 356; Mo-Tavish v. Carroll, 1 Md. Ch. 160; Bussey v. Gant, 10 Humph. 238.

42 Magarity v. Shipman, 82 Va. 784, 1 S. E. 109.

43 Wright v. Laing, 3 B. & C. 165; Armour Packing Co. v. Vinegar Bend Lumber Co., 149 Ala. 205, 42 So. 866; Quigley v. Duffey, 52 la. 610, 3 N. W. 659; Phillips v. Moses, 65 Me. 70; Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 278; McCausland v. Ralston, 12 Nev. 195, 28 Am. St. Rep. 781; Dunbar v. Gar-rity, 58 N. H. 575; Huffstater v. Hayes, 64 Barb. 573; Backman v. Wright, 27 Vt. 187, 65 Am. Dec. 187.