
    John J. Smith ads. Richard B. Screven.
    "TUere moni-vis paid by a debtor to a Creditor who has several (if imnds against hi:.), mid no directions given her it shall be applied., the creditor may apply it as lie pleases; *hereforo, where the creditor holds two bonds of his debtor, both due, and pat able with interest-., >nd money he paid him without directions as to its application, he May appiy it to the part extinguishment of the principal and interest due- at the time on both bonds ; and lie is not bound tú apply it to one bond until it be satisfied, and then to the other.
    
      ,.l scr.mpsit for money said Ico be overpaid by the plaintiff, ( Fica non asaunipnit, asid a balance ctdl due the defendant. Tried before Mr. justice Gantt.
    
    ij.?J this case, it appeared that the plaintiff had, at two different timer,, borr> ¡wed money from Mrs, Ann Joyner, and tvtd, at each time, given his bond for the payment of the same, with interest at a future period. During the life - time of Mrs. Ann Joyner, a separate suit was brought on e-neb bond, and verdicts, &c. obtained. In 181 — , a pay-T-iat of S TOT, was made by R. Lubbock to Mr. Tot ieoiio. vw plaintiff’s attorney, on account of these executions,, without any directions from the defendant or the said J?Lubbock, as to its application. It was therefore applied to the principal and interest due at that time on both bonds, fas per statement sent.-) The subsequent payments were applied in the same manner, until one bond was paid off. From the indulgence which was given by the plaintiff, it became necessary in revive the judgment by scire facia-?; after the present defendant, and who was one of the executors of Mrs. Joyner, had qualified on the will. The action was brought on onejadgment only, as the other was" considered paid. No objection was made at the time to the application of the different payments to the interest due on both bonds, nor for a long time afterwards. There wac still a balance due of B POO 4 on the last judgment.
    In 1SÍ 9, this suit was brought to recover a sum of money overpaid, as it was said, by the defendant.
    The ground on which it was urged he was entitled to a recovery was, that the payments c-hould have been applied 
      i:i one of tlie bonds until that was extinguished, and not to the interest due on both.
    Verdict for the'plaintiff.
    , The present motion for a new trial was made on the following grounds: »
    1st. Because the charge of his honor the Judge, was contrary to law, inasmuch as the creditor had a right so to apply the payment, as to extinguish the interest, due on both bonds ; particularly so, when ■ he is not specially directed in what manner the payments should have been applied ; and his honor decided that the payments should have been applied to the satisfaction of one bond before any part of the payment should be appropriated to the other ; thereby leaving the interest unsatisfied.
    2d. Because the jury, if the principle on which the court decided be correct, did not allow the balance due on She bond on which but few of the payments had been made; which, if they had so done would have reduced the verdict to a sura less than $ 85 71 cents, and consequently summary process costs only would be allowed.
    3d. Because, by the verdict of the jury, the plaintiff in Rie present action has' been permitted to appropriate the payments on the two bonds to promote his own interest, and not to answer the ends of law and justice.
   Mr. Justice Colcock

delivered the opinion of the court.

Where money is paid by a debtor to a creditor who has several demands against him, and no directions are given how it shall be applied, ás a general rule, the creditor may apply it as he pleases, (2 Strange, 1194. Godard vs. Cox, 14 East, 242.) Both the bonds bore interest. Both were due. I therefore think the defendant made a just as well as legal application of the money.

But it cannot be contended with any hope of success,that the plaintiff should recover in the case; for 911 the revival of the second judgment, a statement was given to him, by which he must have known and seen how the money had been applied. He is then considered as having acquiesced ih the application of the money; for if he did not, why not then object? The court had the power to have relieved him, and if he had been entitled to any relief, would, no doubt, have granted it. Even in cases where one has a receipt, which he fails to produce on the trial, he is not permitted to recover the amourit by action after a verdict has passed against him ; (Hampton and Marriott, Grimke, &c.) because this would tend to endless litigation.

The motion is granted.

Justices Richardson, Huger and Bat/, concurred.  