When the interests of the debtor require one application and those of the creditor require another, we have again a conflict between the common-law rule and the civil-law rule.1 The common law rule requires the law to apply payments for the benefit of the creditor in accordance with his presumed intention, where this can be done without injustice to the debtor.2 Undue preference is not to be given to the interests of the creditor, however, and in most jurisdictions it is said that the application which the law will make must be just, reasonable and equitable; and that in making such application the law must give due regard to the interests of both parties.3 Where the rule that the law will apply payments for the benefit of the creditor, is followed, a payment will be applied to an unsecured debt in preference to one which is secured,4 and to the debt secured by the more precarious and less valuable of different securities.5 Thus a general payment will be applied to an unsecured debt in preference to one secured by mortgage,6 or by a laborer's lien,7 or a vendor's lien,8 or by collateral personal security,9 and to a debt inferior to homestead rights in preference to one superior to them.10 The rule that a payment will be applied to an unsecured debt in preference to one which is secured, requires such application, although the secured debt was the older one.11 Some' states that hold that a general payment will be appropriated to an unsecured debt in preference to one which is secured, recognize an exception in case of debts secured by personal security only. It is held that a surety may insist on the appropriation of payments to debts in order of maturity, irrespective of the security afforded by his liability thereon.12 If a receiver has been appointed for a corporation and a former debtor of such corporation continues to buy goods of the receiver, a payment made by such debtor .to the receiver will be applied in payment of goods bought from the receiver and not in payment of goods bought before the receivership against which the debtor could have used a set-off existing in his favor and against the corporation.13

1 United States. Story v. Livingston, 38 U. S. (13 Pet ) 350, 10 L. ed 200.

California. London & San Francisco Bank v. Parrott, 125 Cal. 472, 73 Am. St. Rep. 64, 53 Pac 164.

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

Kentucky. Carter v. Sanderson (Ky.), 41 S \V. 306.

Massachusetts. Fay v. Bradley, 18 Mass. (1 Pick ) 194

Michigan. Wallace v. Glaser, 82 Mich. 190, 21 Am. St. Rep 556, 46 N. W. 227.

Minnesota. Bay View Land Co v. Myers, 62 Minn. 265, 64 N. W. 816

Montana. Anderson v. Perkins, 10 Mont. 154, 25 Pac 92

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

North Carolina. Johnson v. Johnson, 58 N. Car. (5 Jones Eq ) 167.

North Dakota. Langton v Kops, - N D - , 171 N W 334

Ohio. Miami Exporting Co. v. Bank, 5 Ohio 260.

Pennsylvania. Spires v. Hamot, 8 W & S (Pa ) 17; Kann v. Kann, 259 Pa St. 583, 103 Atl. 369 (obiter).

Virginia. Boggess v. Goflf, 47 W. Va. 139, 34 S. E 741.

2 Steel v Taylor, 34 Ky. (4 Dana) 445; Genin v. Ingersoll, 11 W. Va. 549.

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

4Anketel v. Converse, 17 O. S. 11, 91 Am. Dec. 115.

5 Langton v Kops, - N. D. - , 171 N. W. 334

1 "The difference between the common law and the Roman law is to be found in the application which the law makes in the appropriation of a payment in the absence of any made by either the debtor or the creditor. The common law appropriates the payment most beneficially for the creditor; the civil law appropriates the payment most beneficially for the debtor" McLaughlin v. Green, 48 Miss 175, 205

2In re American Taper Co, 255 Fed. 121; Bell v. Bell, 174 Ala 446. 37 L R A (N.S.) 1203, 56 So 026; Parker v. Dantzler Foundry & Machine Works, 118 Miss. 126, L R A 1918F. 705, 79 So 82; Poling v. Flanagan. 41 W Va. 191, 23 S. E 685

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

California. Murdock v. Clarke, 88 Cal 384, 26 Pac. 601.

Iowa. Cain v Vogt, 138 la 631, 116 N. W. 786.

Kansas. Linscott State Bank v. Fidelity A Deposit Co, 94 Kan 30, 145 Pac. 868

Kentucky.. Woolfolk v. Thomas, 164 Ky. 43, 174 S. W. 730.

Massachusetts. Blackstone Bank v. Hill, 27 Mass. (10 Pick) 129; Commercial Bank v. Cunningham, 41 Mass. (24 Pick.) 270, 35 Am. Dec 322.

Michigan. Van Sceiver v. King, 176 Mich. 605, 142 N. W. 1060

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.

Vermont. Robinson v. Doolittle, 12 Vt 246.

West Virginia. Wait v. Homestead Building Association, 81 W. Va. 702, 95 S. 203

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

4 United States. Sanborn v. Stark, 31 Fed 18; In re American Paper Co., 255 Fed 121.

Alabama. Stickney v. Moore, 106 Ala 500, 19 So 76.

Kentucky. Offut v. Devine's Exr. (Ky), 55 S. W. 428, 53 S W. 816; Bell & Coggeshall Co. v. Kentucky Glass Works Co., 106 Ky. 7, 50 S. W. 2, 1002, 51 S. W. 180 [reversing on rehearing. 48 S W. 440]

Michigan. Wood v. Callaghan, 61 Mich 402, 1 Am St. Rep. 507, 28 X. W. 162.

North Carolina. Lester v. Houston, 101 X. Car 605, 8 S. E. 366

Oklahoma. St Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Ravia Granite Ballast Co., - Okla. - , 174 Pac. 252.

Vermont Still v. Buzzell, 60 Vt. 478, 12 Atl. 209; First National Bank v. Johnson, 65 Vt. 382, 26 Atl. 634.

Washington. Post-Intelligeneer Publishing Co. v. Harris, 11 Wash. 500, 39 Pac 065.

Wisconsin. North v. La Flesh, 73 Wis. 520, 41 N. W. 633.

5 Alabama. McCurdy v. Middleton, 82 Ala. 131, 2 So. 721; Bell v. Bell, 174 Ala. 446, 37 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1203, 56 So. 926.

California. California National Bank v. Ginty, 108 Cal. 148, 41 Pac. 38.

Iowa. Hanson v. Manley, 72 la. 48, 33 N. W. 357.

Kentucky. Blanton v. Rice, 21 Ky. (5 T. B. Mon.) 253.

New Jersey. Leeds v. Gifford, 41 N. J. Eq. 464, 5 Atl. 795; Turner v. Hill, 56 N. J. Eq. 203, 39 Atl. 137.

North Carolina. Ramaour v. Thomas, 32 N. Car. 165.

Pennsylvania. Pardee v. Markle, 111 Pa. St. 548, 56 Am. Rep. 299, 6 Atl. 36; Richard's Estate, 185 Pa. St. 155, 39 Atl. 1117.

Virginia. Pope v. Transparent Ice Co., 91 Va. 79, 20 S. E. 940.

Washington. Smythe v. New England Loan & Trust Co., 12 Wash. 424, 41 Pac. 184.

West Virginia. Poling v. Flanagan, 41 W. Va. 191, 23 S. E. 685.

6 The Katie O'Neil, 65 Fed. Ill; Jef-fers v. Pease, 74 Vt. 215, 52 Atl. 422.

7 Wagoner's Appeal, 103 Pa. St. 185, 49 Am. Rep. 121.

8 McCauley v. Holtz, 62 Ind. 205.

9 Sanborn v. Stark, 31 Fed. 18; White v. Beem, 80 Ind. 239; Burks v. Albert, 27 Ky. (4 J. J. Mar.) 97, 20 Am. Dec. 209; Burt v. Butterworth, 19 R. I. 127, 32 Atl. 167.

10 Andrews v. Kentucky Citizens* Building & Loan Association (Ky.), 70 S. W. 409. A different result was reached on similar facts in First National Bank v. Hollingsworth, 78 la 575, 6 L. R. A. 92, 43 N. W. 536, on the theory that the superiority of a debt to homestead rights was not a lien, that the rights of the debtor's family 3hould be protected, and that the law tended to favor homestead rights.

11 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State, 81 Kan. 660, 26 L. R. A. (N.S.) 865, 106 Pac. 1040.

12 Pardee v. Markle, 111 Pa. St. 548, 56 Am. Rep. 299, 5 Atl. 36; Berghaus v. Alter, 9 Watts (Pa.) 386; Black-more v. Granbery, 98 Tenn. 277, 39 S. W. 220.