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 first to the discharge of the arrearages of interest; whereas he insisted, that it ought first to have been deducted from the principal debt.
But SHIPPEN, President, said, that the practice had been otherwise; and he though with great reason and propriety. He remember to have heard of an old decision when Logan was Chief Justice, in which it was expressly settled, that money paid on account of a bond, should first be applied to discharge the interest due at the time of the payment, and the residue, if any, credited towards satisfaction of the principal. By this rule, the Gentlemen of the Bar had uniformly governed their calculations before the Revolution.
Lewis, for the Plaintiff, insifted that the practice was the same at the present day, and appealed to the Attornies in Court, who confirmed his assertion.[♦]