
    The Executors of Huger against Bocquet.
    
    whore mo» account1M<ofn generally0 "nd m0i’e, t ®al1 enough to pay off the two first, those two shall be exthict^umier do]^T bbc carried to the credit of the third.
    DEBT on three bonds, all dated the 21st of Aprils ITT4 : one bond for 3,000/» currency, payable the 1st of July, 1774; one do. for 7,000/» do» 1st of April, 1 TTS; one do. for 7,000/. do. do» 1776» *
    
    This matter turned upon the depreciation law. Sundry . , . , . , receipts were produced xor sundry sums paid on account oi these bonds, from March, 1 TTS, to January, 17S0, amount» :ag together to upwards of 16,000/. currency j and the point in dispute was, whether these payments should be carried to the credit of all the bonds, generally, which would leave . „ . . . them as one entire contract, or to the credit oí the two first, (which would thereby become extinguished,) and the balance, after being depreciated, to the credit of the third bond ?
    For the defendant, it was contended by Pinckney and Rutledge, that the payments ought to be applied to the extinguishment of the two first bonds, in the first place; and the residue, after being depreciated, to the credit of the third bond and interest, as far as it would extend; and that the plaintiffs would then be entitled to a verdict for the balance, and no more. That to settle it in any other manner, would make an amazing difference in the sum now really due, as the whole of the contracts would then remain unsettled, and the payments must be depreciated; whereas, to settle it in the manner they insisted on, would be extinguishing the two first contracts, and would leave only the third and last, a subsisting one. This, they further contended, was agreeable to the nature and order of things, that the bonds first due, should be paid off first, and the one due at the latest period., last. That he who pays the money, has a right to direct the application of it, or to what purpose it ought to be applied ; and for that purpose quoted 1 Esp. 357. Cro. Eliz. 68. They further quoted Wane, and Waders case ; the case of Fitzsi-mons v. Ashe ; Whippy v. Ashe; and Chisolm v. Gillon ; in all which cases the courts had determined agreeable to these principles.
    Pringle, for the plaintiffs,
    contended, that the bonds bearing all the same date, and for one entire purchase, could be considered as only one' contract, although payable at different days ; and if any part remained due, the whole was to be considered as a subsisting contract at this day, and ought to be settled accordingly, after giving credit for the payments, agreeable to the depreciation law. He relied on the case of Murphy v. Thompson, at Georgetozvn, where two bonds out of four, being paid off, a suit upon the third bond was dismissed, as more than two-fifths, under the instalment laWj, were paid off. Pie also contended that the case of Wade and Wane was not the opinion of the court, only the fluctuating opinion of a jury, which might be contradicted by another jury.
    
      
       This case was omitted among those of irO";
    
   By the Court,

unanimously.

(Present, the Chief Justice, Burke and Bay, Justices.)

The payments ought, in the first place, to be applied to the extinguishment of the two first bonds, and the balance to the credit of the last bond. The case of Murphy v. Thompson, quoted from Georgetown, was a case under the instalment law, and respected the commencement of a suit, when it was alleged two-fifths of the original debt had been paid off; but it did not go to the extinguishment of any part of the debt under the depreciation law. The case of Wane and Wade had been determined by a special jury, on very just and legal principles, and all the other cases quoted by the defendant’s counsel, have confirmed the doctrine ever since.

The jury found the two first bonds paid off, and carried the balance of payment to the credit of the last bond.  