Jackson v. Bailey

• Decision Date: 31 December 1850
• Citation: 2 Peck 159,1850 WL 4342,12 Ill. 159
• Parties: John E. Jackson, plaintiff in error,v.William S. Bailey, defendant in error.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

12 Ill. 159
1850 WL 4342 (Ill.)
2 Peck (IL) 159

John E. Jackson, plaintiff in error,
v.
William S. Bailey, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

December Term, 1850.

Error to McDonough.

A debtor paying money, has the right to direct how it shall be appropriated; and if the creditor misapplies the payment, he cannot complain if he loses the benefit of it. The application of the payment cannot be changed without the consent of the debtor.^a

Bailey sued Jackson before a justice of the peace, in two suits at the same time, one for the balance due upon a note amounting to $10.85, and the other, to recover the amount of an account for eighteen dollars. Judgment was rendered, by default in both cases, as follows: for $10.85 on the note, and for eight dollars on the account. Jackson paid the amount of the judgment on the account, and took an appeal from the judgment upon the note to the Circuit Court.

On the hearing in the Circuit Court, it appeared that Jackson had paid Bailey ten dollars, which he directed should be endorsed upon the note; instead of doing this, Bailey had credited that sum upon the account, which was originally for eighteen dollars, but was reduced by the credit to eight dollars, for which sum the judgment was rendered. The Circuit Court, Minshall, Judge, presiding, at the May term, 1850, to whom the cause was submitted, affirmed the judgment of the justice of the peace.

Jackson brings the case to this court, and seeks to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court; and assigns for error, the not allowing to him credit upon the note for the ten dollars, which he directed should be so applied; and the rendition of a judgment for eleven dollars, when only one dollar was due upon it; and in not declaring that the judgment upon one suit was a bar to a judgment in the other.

[12 Ill. 160]

Warren and Edmunds, for plaintiff in error:

Both suits were of the same nature, and together amounted to less than $100, and should have been consolidated, and the payment of one judgment satisfies both. A debtor may direct on what particular indebtedness money paid by him shall be credited: 2 Greenleaf's Ev., 529-30; Pattison v. Hall, 9 Cowen, 747; 4 Phillip's Ev., C. & Hill's Notes, p. 131. note F, 371-2.

R. S. Blackwell, for defendant in error:

1. The doctrine relative to the appropriation of payments was borrowed from the civil law, and adopted first by the equity courts, thence transplanted to courts of law. The doctrine is purely equitable, and each case must...