Penrose v. Hart
PENROSE verʃus HART.
O
N a rule to fhew caufe why the Judgment confeffed by warrant of Attorney in this cafe fhould not be opened, Fiʃher ftated that feveral partial payments had been made by the Defendant, 
which the Plaintiff had applied firft to the difcharge of the arrearages of intereft; whereas he infifted, that it ought firft to have been deducted from the principal debt.
But SHIPPEN, Preʃident, faid, that the practice had been otherwife; and he though with great reafon and propriety. He remember to have heard of an old decifion when Logan was Chieƒ Juʃtice, in which it was exprefsly fettled, that money paid on account of a bond, fhould firft be applied to difcharge the intereft due at the time of the payment, and the refidue, if any, credited towards fatisfaction of the principal. By this rule, the Gentlemen of the But had uniformly governed their calculations before the Revolution.
Lewis, for the Plaintiff, infifted that the practice was the fame at the prefent day, and appealed to the Attornies in Court, who confirmed his affertion.[♦]