Appeal of Bell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
October Term, 1886, No. 182, W. D., before Gordon, Paxson, Trunkey, Sterrett, Green, and Clark, JJ. Appeal from a decree of the Common Pleas No. 2 of Allegheny County dismissing exceptions to a master’s report in favor of complainant in a bill in equity for an accounting and partition of lands.
Read the full summary
October Term, 1886, No. 182, W. D., before Gordon, Paxson, Trunkey, Sterrett, Green, and Clark, JJ. Appeal from a decree of the Common Pleas No. 2 of Allegheny County dismissing exceptions to a master’s report in favor of complainant in a bill in equity for an accounting and partition of lands. The material facts in the case were as follows: Complainant, John A. McKee, was the owner of certain lands in Stowe township, which were encumbered by mortgages and judgments to a large amount. An arrangement was made with Thompson Bell, the respondent, in pursuance of which the latter secured control…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Paxson:
It is a settled rule in this state that where money is paid generally upon a bond or other debt, such payment must be applied to the interest, if any, in arrears, and the balance to the prin*425cipal. Com. use of Bellas v. Vanderslice, 8 Serg. & R. 452; Spires v. Hamot, 8 Watts & S. 17; Moore v. Kiff, 78 Pa. 96.
It is equally clear that this rule has no application to mutual .running accounts. In such cases if interest is allowed upon one side, it must be allowed upon the other.
In this case the learned master has charged the interest on both sides, holding that the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Moore v. KiffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Spires v. HamotSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kann v. KannSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918