From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Penrose v. Hart

U.S.
Jan 1, 1788
1 U.S. 378 (1788)

Opinion

DECEMBER TERM, 1788.

Lewis, for the Plaintiff, insisted that the practice was the same at the present day, and appealed to the Attornies in Court, who confirmed his assertion.

See ant. 124.


ON a rule to shew cause why the Judgment confessed by warrant of Attorney in this case should not be opened, Fisher stated that several 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 thought with great reason and propriety. He remembered 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, created towards satisfaction of the principal. By this rule, the Gentlemen of the Bar had uniformly governed their calculations before the Revolution.


Summaries of

Penrose v. Hart

U.S.
Jan 1, 1788
1 U.S. 378 (1788)
Case details for

Penrose v. Hart

Case Details

Full title:PENROSE versus HART

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 1, 1788

Citations

1 U.S. 378 (1788)

Citing Cases

In re Giorgio Shellfish Corp.

The practice of applying monies first to interest and then to principal dates as far back as the eighteenth…