There is a conflict of authority as to the time at which the creditor may exercise his right of appropriating payments made by the debtor. The common-law rule assumes that it is not necessary that the creditor should make such appropriation at the time that the payment is made.1 For what length of time after payment the right of the creditor to make such appropriation persists, is a question upon which there is a conflict of authority in the jurisdictions which have adopted the common-law rule. According to one view, the creditor may make such appropriation at any time before the controversy between the debtor and the creditor has arisen;2 and if such controversy has arisen, it is said that the creditor can no longer make such appropriation, but that the law will make it.3 In other jurisdictions it is said that the creditor may make the appropriation at any time before the action against the debtor to enforce payment of the debt has been begun.4 Other authorities apply this rule even more liberally in favor of the creditor and allow him to make such application at any time before the court makes the application.5

1 Slaughter v. Milling, 15 La. Ann 626; Sleet v. Sleet, 109 La. 302, 33 So. 322; Dorsey v. Gassaway, 2 H. A J. (Md.) 402, 3 Am. Dec. 557; Neal v. Allison, 50 Miss. 175.

1 England. Cory v. The Mecca [18971, A. C. 286; Seymour v. Pickett [1905], 1 K. B. 715.

Connecticut. American Woolen Go. v. Maaget, 86 Conn. 234, 85 Atl. 583 (obiter).

Maine. The Lehigh Coal and Navigation Co. v. McLeod, 114 Me. 427, 96 Atl. 736 (obiter).

Michigan. People v. Grant, 139 Mich. 26, 102 N. W. 226.

New Jersey. Benson v. Reinshagen, 75 N. J. Eq. 358, 72 Atl. 955.

Vermont. Pierce v. Knight, 31 Vt. 701 (obiter).

2 United States. United States v. Kirkpatrick, 22 U. S. (9 Wheat) 720, 6 L. ed. 199.

Connecticut. American Woolen Co.

v. Maaget, 86 Conn. 234, 85 Atl. 583 (obiter).

Indiana. Applegate v. Koons, 74 Ind. 247.

Maine. The Lehigh Coal and Navigation Co. v. McLeod, 114 Me. 427, 96 Atl. 736.

New Jersey. Benson v. Reinshagen, 75 N. J. Eq. 358, 72 Atl. 955.

Rhode Island. Burt v. Butterworth, 19 R. I. 127, 32 Atl. 167.

West Virginia. Norris v. Beaty, 6 W. Va. 477.

3 In re American Paper Co., 255 Fed. 121.

4 England. Cory v. The Mecca [1897], A. C. 286.

California. Haynes v. Waite, 14 CaL 446

Michigan. People v. Grant, 139 Mich. 26, 102 N W. 226.

Missouri. State v. Blakemore, 275 Mo. 695, 205 S W. 626.

New Hampshire. Richards v. Columbia, 55 N. II 96.

The civil-law rule, on the other hand, requires the creditor to make the application when payment is made, or, at least, as some authorities hold, within a reasonable time after payment has been made; and this rule is followed in some American states.6 This appears to have been the original English rule,7 but it has been repudiated in later cases.8