If no affirmative intention to make an application appears, the court will apply such payments as justice dictates and as the parties would probably have intended.1 So vague a rule is of little practical aid.2 Certain concrete rules have, however, been worked out and are followed by the courts with substantial unanimity. Payment will in the absence of reasons to the contrary be applied to the oldest debt,3 as to the note of a series which matures earliest,4 and to the earliest items of a running account.5 A change in methods of bookkeeping from the " old system " to the "coupon book "system while an account is running does not interrupt the account so as to prevent a payment made after the change from applying to items entered before the change.6 A change in the membership of the creditor firm does not change the account for purposes of appropriation; and if no appropriation is made by either party the law will apply a general payment to the earliest unpaid item of the original account.7 The rule that payment should be applied to the oldest debt has been applied in cases where some of the items of an account could be secured by lien and others could not.8

6 Hanly v. Potts, 52 W. Va. 263; 43 S. E. 218.

7 Law v. Blomberg (Neb.), 91 N. W. 206.

1 Price v. Dowdy, 34 Ark. 285; London, etc., Bank v. Parrott, 125 Cal. 472; 73 Am. St. Rep. 64; 58 Pac. 164; Murdock v. Clarke, 88 Cal. 384; 26 Pac. 601; Chester v. Wheelwright, 15 Conn. 562; Andrews v. Bank, 108 Ga. 802; 34 S. E. 183; Koch v. Roth, 150 111. 212; 37 N. E. 317; Jacobs v. Ballenger, 130 Ind. 231; 15 L. R. A. 169; 29 N. E. 782; First National Bank v. Hol-linsworth, 78 la. 575; 6 L. R. A. 92; 43 N. W. 536; Hillyer v. Vaughan, 1 J. J. Mar. (Ky.) 583; Richardson v. Woodbury, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 279; Grasser, etc., Co. v. Rogers, 112 Mich. 112; 67 Am. St. Rep. 389; 70 N. W. 445; Thorne v. Allen, 72 Minn. 461; 75 N. W. 706; Dohertv v. Cotter, 68 N. H. 37; 38 Atl. 399; White v. Trumbull, 15 N. J. L. 314; 29 Am. Dec. 687; Raymond v. Newman. 122 N. C. 52; 29 S. E. 353; Trullinger v. Kofoed, 7 Or. 228; 33 Am. Rep. 708; Risher v. Risher, 194 Pa. St. 164; 45 Atl. 71; White v. Blakemore. 8 Lea (Tenn.) 49; Phillips v. Herndon, 78 Tex. 378; 22 Am. St. Rep. 59; 14 S. W. 857; Pawlet v. Kelley, 69 Vt. 398; 38 Atl. 92; Frazer v. Miller, 7 Wash. 521; 35 Pac. 427.

2 See criticism in Hersey v. Bennett, 28 Minn. 86; 41 Am. Rep. 271; 9 N. W. 590.

3 Rickerson Roller Mill Co. v. Machine Co.. 75 Fed. 554; 23 C. C. A. 302; Golden v. Conner, 89 Ala. 598; 8 So. 184; Goldsmith v. Lewine, 70 Ark. 516; 69 S. W. 308; Dunnington v. Kirk, 57 Ark. 595; 22 S. W. 430; Moss v. Odell, 141 Cal. 335; 74 Pac.

999; Lodge v. Ainseow, 1 Penne. (Del.) 327; 41 Atl. 187; Green v. Ford, 79 Ga. 130; 3 S. E. 624; Clark v. Huey, 12 Ind. App. 224; 40 N. E. 152; Briggs v. Loan Association, 114 la. 232; 86 N. W. 320; Sleet v. Sleet, 109 La. 302; 33 So. 322; Bloom v. Kern, 30 La. Ann. 1263; Grasser, etc., Co. v. Rogers, 112 Mich. 112; 67 Am. St. Rep. 389; 70 N. W. 445; Jefferson v. Church, 41 Minn. 392; 34 N. W. 74; Shelby v. Brown (Miss.), 24 So. 531; Beck v. Haas, 111 Mo. 264; 33 Am. St. Rep. 516; 20 S. W. 19; Doherty v. Cotter, 68 N. H. 37; 38 Atl. 499; Parks v. Ingram, 22 N. H. 283; 55 Am. Dec. 153; Miller v. Womble, 122 N. C. 135; 29 S. E. 102; Risher v. Risher, 194 Pa. St. 164; 45 Atl. 71; Frazer v. Miller, 7 Wash. 521; 35 Pac. 427; Rowan v. Chenoweth, - W. Va. - ; 47 S. E. 80; Zinns Mfg. Co. v. Mendelson, 89 Wis. 133; 61 N. W. 302.

4 In re Stevens, 107 Fed. 243; Ge-nin v. Tngersoll, 11 W. Va. 549.

5 Clayton's Case, 1 Meriv. 572; Jones v. United States, 7 How. (U. S.) 681; United States v. Kirkpat-rick. 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 720; Golden v. Conner, 89 Ala. 598; 8 So. 148;

Sprague v. Hazenwinkle, 53 Hi. 419; Allen v. Brown, 39 la. 336; Stern-berger v. Gowdy, 93 Ky. 146; 19 S. W. 186; Helm v. Commonwealth, 79 Ky. 67; Sleet v. Sleet, 109 La. 302; 33 So. 322; People v. Sheehan, 118 Mich. 539; 77 N. W. 88; Winnebago Paper Mills v. Travis, 56 Minn. 480; 58 N. W. 36; National Park Bank v. Bank, 114 N. Y. 28; 11 Am. St. Rep. 612; 20 N. E. 632; Jenkins v. Smitfl, 72 N. C. 296; Patterson v. Bank, 26 Or. 509; 38 Pac. 817; Pardee \. Markle, 111 Pa. St. 548; 56 Am. Rep. 299; 5 Atl. 36; Lippman v. boals, 16 Lea (Tenn.) 283; Willis v. Mclntyre. 70 Tex. 34; 8 Am. St. Rep. 574; 7 S. W. 594; Smith v. Loyd. 11 Leigh (Va.) 535; 37 Am. Dec. 621; Hannan v. Engelmann, 49 Wis. 278; 5 N. W. 791.

6 Goldsmith v. Lewine, 70 Ark. 516; 69 S. W. 308.

7 Devaynes v. Noble, 1 Meriv. 529; Schoonover v. Osborne, 108 la. 453; 79 N. W. 263; Forst v. Kirkpatrick, 64 N. J. Eq. 578; 54 Atl. 554; Morgan v. Tarbell, 28 Vt. 498.

8 Pond, etc., Co. v. O'Connor. 70 Minn. 266; 73 N. W. 159: modification denied, 73 N. W. 248.

This rule will not Le applied where it will work injustice. The law will uot apply a general payment to the interest on a mortgage debt so as to prevent the mortgagee from exercising an option to declare the entire amount due.9 It has been held that the law will not apply a payment to a debt barred by the statute of limitations,10 though there is authority to the effect that the law may appropriate a general payment to a debt barred by the statute of limitations.11 A payment upon an interest-bearing debt will be applied to the interest in preference to the principal,12 and if the debtor is indebted to the creditor in several debts, each bearing interest, payment should be applied to interest on all the debts before it is applied to the principal of any one debt.13 Even if the payment is equal in amount to the principal, it must be applied first to discharge overdue interest.14 Where the law allows interest on interest, a payment should be applied first to discharge overdue interest on interest; second, to discharge overdue interest, and third, to discharge the principal.15 The law will apply a payment to an undisputed claim in preference to a disputed one,16 and to an overdue claim in preference to one incurred after such payment,17 and to the valid part of a debt in preference to the void part.18 Payment to a building and loan association by a borrowing member is to be applied to bis liability for the stock and not upon Lis loan.19

9 Peterson v. Johnson, 20 Wash. 497; 55 Pac. 932.

10 Estes v. Fry, 166 Mo. 70; 65 S. W. 741; Livermore v. Eand, 26 N. H. 85.

11 Fletcher v. Gillan, 62 Miss. 8; Phipps v. Willis, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 186; 32 S. W. 801.

12 Story v. Livingston. 13 Pet. (U. S.) 359; London, etc., Bank v. Par-rott, 125 Cal. 472; 73 Am. St. Rep. 64; 58 Pac. 164; Jacobs v. Ballen-ger, 130 Ind. 231; 15 L. R. A. 169; 29 N. E. 782; Carter v. Sanderson (Ky.). 41 S. W. 306; Fay v. Bradley. 1 Pick. (Mass.) 194; Wallace v. Glaser, 82 Mich. 190; 21 Am. St. Rep. 556; 46 N. W. 227: Bay View Land Co. v. Myers. 62 Minn. 265: 64 N. W. 816; Anderson v. Perkins. 10 Mont. 154; 25 Pac. 92; Johnson v.

Johnson, 5 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 167; Miami Exporting Co. v. Bank, 5 Ohio 260; Spires v. Hamot, 8 W. &, S. (Pa.) 17; Boggess v. Goff, 47 W. Va. 139; 34 S. E. 741.

13 Steele v. Taylor, 4 Dana (Ky.) 445; Genin v. Ingersoll, 11 W. Va. 549.

14 Henderson Cotton Mfg. Co. v. Machine Shops, 86 Ky. 668; 7 S. W. 142; People v. New York County, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 331.

15 Anketel v. Converse, 17 O. S. 11; 91 Am. Dec. 115.

16 The Peerless, 80 Fed. 942.

17 United States v. Morgan. Ill Fed. 474; McWhorter v. Blumen-thal, 136 Ala. 568; 96 Am. St. Rep. 43; 33 So. 552; London, etc.. Bank v. Parrott, 125 Cal. 472; 73 Am. St. Rep. 64; 58 Pac. 164.