Penrose v. Hart
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
On a rule to shew cause why the Judgement 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. insifted that the practice was the same at the present day, and appealed to the Attornies in Court, who confirmed his…
Read the full summary
On a rule to shew cause why the Judgement 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. insifted that the practice was the same at the present day, and appealed to the Attornies in Court, who confirmed his assertion- *
1Opinion of the Court
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, credited towards satisfaction of the principal. By this rule, the Gentlemen of the Bar had uniformly governed their calculations before the Revolution.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Dean v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Hart v. DormanSupreme Court of Florida · 1849
- Spires v. HamotSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Fitch v. RossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1818
- James David Kline v. City of Tucson, et al.District Court, D. Arizona · 2026