Fargo v. Jennings
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Fall River county. Hon. William Gardner, Judge. Action on a promissory note. From the judgment reducing plaintiffs’ claim, plaintiffs appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion. A creditor to whom a payment of money is made by a debtor may credit the payment on either an account or note as he may choose — nothing being said as to how it should be applied.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Fall River county. Hon. William Gardner, Judge. Action on a promissory note. From the judgment reducing plaintiffs’ claim, plaintiffs appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion. A creditor to whom a payment of money is made by a debtor may credit the payment on either an account or note as he may choose — nothing being said as to how it should be applied. Blair v. Hillis, 41 N. W. 6; Whiting v. Eichelberger, 16la. 422; Firsh v. Roberts, 49 N. W. 722; Munson v. Plummer, 7 Id. 95; 18 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law 237; Shortridge v. Pardee, 2 Mo. App. 368; Niagara v. Rosevel,…
1Opinion of the CourtFuller, J.
This action upon a promissory note was tried to the court without a jury. As a partial defense it was averred in the answer that the defendant paid plaintiffs $100 on the 4th day of October, 1890, to be applied upon said note, and it was admitted that the balance thereof was still due and unpaid. The facts as found by the court are, in substance, as follows: On the 4th day of October, 1890, defendant was indebted to plaintiffs something over $100 on account, and at the same time they were the owners and holders of his past-due, unsecured, promissory note for $175, bearing interest at 12 per…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Whiting v. EichelbergerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Shortridge v. PardeeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
- First National Bank v. RobertsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- Munson v. PlummerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880