Payment will, in the absence of reasons to the contrary, be applied to the oldest debt,1 as to the note of a series which matures earliest,2 and to the earliest items of a running account.3 If the security for an earlier obligation is the same as the security for a later obligation, a payment which has not been applied by the parties will be applied by the law to the obligation which has matured first.4 If the plaintiff maintains an action to recover a number of items, and if he admits general payments which exceed the amount of certain earlier items which are set forth in a cause of action, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on such cause of action must be set aside, since by the operation of the law such payments must be applied upon the earlier items.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

Connecticut. Chester v Wheelwright, 15 Conn. 562.

Georgia. Andrews v. Exchange Bank, 108 Ga. 802, 34 S. E. 183.

Illinois. Koch v. Roth, 150 111. 212, 37 N. E. 317.

Indiana. Jacobs v. Ballenger, 130 Ind. 231, 15 L. R. A. 169, 29 N. E. 782.

Iowa. First National Bank v. Hol-lins worth, 78 la. 575, 0 L. R. A. 92, 43 N. W. 536.

Kentucky. Hillyer v. Vaughan, 24 Ky. (1 J. J. Mar.) 5S3.

Massachusetts. Commercial Bank v. Cunningham, 41 Mass. (2\ Pick.) 270, 35 Am.'Dec. 322; Richardson v. Woodbury, 66 Mass. (12 Cush.) 279.

Michigan. Crasser & Brand Brewing Co. v. Rogers, 112 Mich. 112, 67 Am. St. Rep. 389, 70 N. W. 445; Van Sceiver v. King, 176 Mich. 605, 142 X. W. 1069.

Minnesota. Thorne v. Allen, 72 Minn. 461, 75 N. W. 706.

New Hampshire. Doherty v. Cotter, 68 N. H. 37, 38 Atl. 399.

New Jersey. White v. Trumbull, 15 N. J. L. 314, 29 Am. Dec. 687.

New York. Orleans County National Bank v. Moore, 112 N. Y. 543, 8 Am. St. Rep. 775, 3 L. R. A. 302, 20 N.

E 357; Armstrong v McLean, 153 N. Y. 490, 47 N. E. 912.

North Carolina. Raymond v. Newman, 122 N. Car. 52, 29 S. E. 353.

Oregon. Trullinger v. Kofoed,* 7 Or. 228, 33 Am. Rep. 708.

Pennsylvania. Risher v. Risber, 194 Pa. St. 164, 45 Atl. 71.

Tennessee. White v. Blakemore, 76 Tenn. (8 Lea) 49.

Texas. Phillips v. Herndon, 78 Tex. 378, 22 Am. St. Rep. 59, 14 S. W. 857.

Vermont. Pawlet v. Kelley, 69 Vt. 393, 38 Atl. 92.

Washington. Frazcr v. Miller, 7 Wash. 521, 35 Pac. 427. 4 See criticism in Hersey v. Bennett, 28 Minn. 86, 41 Am. Rep. 271, 9 N. W. 590.

5 The Peerless, 80 Fed. 942.

6United States v. Morgan, 111 Fed. 474; McWhorter v. Blumenthal, 136 Ala. 568, 96 Am. St. Rep. 43, 33 So. 552; London & San Francisco Bank v. Parrott, 125 Cal. 472, 73 Am. St. Rep. 64, 58 Pac. 164.

7Kuker v. Mclntyre, 43 S. Car. 117, 20 S. E. 976.

8 Sheldon v. Birmingham Building & Loan Association, 121 Ala. 278, 25 So. 820.

1 United States. Rickerson Roller Mill Co. v. Farrell Foundry & Machine Co, 75 Fed. 554, 23 C C. A. 302.

Alabama. Golden v. Conner, 89 Ala, 598, 8 So 184.

Arkansas. Dunnington v. Kirk, 57 Ark. 595, 22 S. W. 430; Goldsmith v. Lewine, 70 Ark 516, 69 S. W. 308.

California. Moss v. Odell, 141 Cal 335, 74 Pac. 999.

Colorado. Ady & Crowe Mercantile Co. v. Howard, - Colo. - , 176 Pac. 323.

Delaware. Lodge v. Ainscow, 1 Penn. (Del.) 327, 41 Atl. 187.

Georgia. Green v. Ford, 79 Ga. 130, 3 S E 624.

Indiana. Clark v. Huey, 12 Ind. App. 224, 40 N. E. 152.

Iowa. Briggs v. Iowa Savings & Loan Association, 114 la. 232, 86 N. W. 320.

Louisiana. Sleet v. Sleet, 109 La. 302, 33 So 322; Bloom v. Kern, 30 La. Ann. 1263.

Michigan. Grasser & Brand Brewing Co. v. Rogers, 112 Mich. 112, 67 Am. St Rep. 389, 70 N. W. 445.

Minnesota. Jefferson v. Church, 41 Minn. 392, 34 N. W. 74.

Mississippi. Shelby v. Brown (Miss.) 24 So. 531.

Missouri. Beck v. Haas, 111 Mo. 264, 33 Am. St. Rep. 516, 20 S. W. 19.

New Hampshire. Parks v. Ingram, 22 N. II. 283, 55 Am. Dec 153; Doherty v. Cotter, 68 N. II. 37, 38 Atl. 499.

New Mexico. Armijo v. Henry, 14 N. M. 181, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 275, 89 Pac. 305.

North Carolina. Miller v. Womble, 122 N. Car. 135. 29 S. E. 102.

Pennsylvania. Risher v. Risher, 194 Pa. St. 164, 45 Atl. 71.

Washington. Frazer v. Miller, 7 Wash 521, 35 Pac 427.

West Virginia. Rowan v. Chenoweth, 55 W. Va. 325, 47 S. E. 80.

Wisconsin. Zinns Mfg. Co. v. Men-delson, 89 Wis. 133, 61 N. W. 302.

Wyoming. King v. Beaumier, - Wyom. - , 174 Pac 612

2 In re Stevens, 107 Fed 243; Genin v. Ingersoll, 11 W. Va. 549.

3 England. Clayton's Case, 1 Meriv. 572.

United States. United State? v. Kirkpatrick, 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 720, 6 L. ed 199; Jones v. United States, 48 U. S. (7 How.) 681, 12 L. ed 870.

Alabama. Golden v. Conner, 89 Ala. 598, 8 So. 148.

Colorado. Ady & Crowe Mercantile Co. v. Howard, - Colo. - , 176 Pac. 328.

Illinois. Sprague v. Hazenwinkle, 53 111. 419.

Iowa. Allen v. Brown, 39 la. 330.

Kentucky. IIelm v. Commonwealth, 79 Ky. 67; Sternberger v. Gowdy, 93. Ky. 146, 19 S W 186.

Louisiana. Sleet v. Sleet, 109 La. 302, 33 So 322.

Michigan. People v. Sheehan, 118 Mich. 539, 77 N. W. 88.

Minnesota. Winnebago Paper Mills v. Travis, 56 Minn. 480, 58 N. W. 36.

New York. National Park Bank v. Seaboard Bank, 114 N. Y. 28, 11 Am. St. Rep. 612, 20 N. E. 632.

North Carolina. Jenkins v. Smith, 72 N Car. 296

Oregon. Patterson v. Bank, 26 Or. 509, 38 Pac 817.

Pennsylvania. Pardee v. Markle, 111 Pa. St. 548, 56 Am. Rep. 299, 5 Atl. 36.

Tennessee. Lippman v. Boals, 84 Tenn. (16 Lea) 283.

The rule that payment should be applied to the oldest debt has been applied in cases where some of the items of an account are secured, or could be secured as by lien, and others could not.8 In a few cases, priority has been given to the rule than a payment should be appropriated to an unsecured item as against one which is secured in some way.9

This rule will not be applied where it will work injustice. The law will not 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.10 It has been held that the law will not apply a payment to a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations,11 though'there is authority to the effect that the law may appropriate a general payment to a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations.12

Texas. Willis v. Mclntyre, 70 Tex. 34, 8 Am. St. Rep. 574, 7 S. W. 594.

Virginia. Smith v. Loyd, 38 Va. (11 Leigh) 035, 37 Am. Dec 021.

Wisconsin. Hannan v. Engelmann, 49 Wis. 278, 5 N. W. 791

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

5 King v. Beaumier, - Wyom. - , 174 Pac. 612.

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

7Devaynes v. Noble, 1 Meriv 529; Schoonover v. Osborne, 108 Ia. 453, 79 N. W. 263; Forst v. Kirkpatrick, 64

N. J. Eq. 578, 54 Atl. 554; Morgan v. Tarbell, 28 Vt. 498.

8 Moses v Noble, 86 Ala. 407, 5 So. 181; Worthley v. Emerson, 116 Mass. 374; Pond & Hasey Co. v. O'Connor, 70 Minn. 266, 73 N. W. 159 [modification denied, 73 N. W. 248].

9 Pierce v. Sweet, 33 Pa. St. 151.

110 Peterson v. Johnson, 20 Wash. 497, 55 Pac. 932

1 1 Estes v Fry, 166 Mo. 70, 65 S. W. 741; Livermore v. Rand, 26 N. H. 85

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