12 Ill. 159 (Ill. 1850), Jackson v. Bailey
|Citation:||12 Ill. 159|
|Opinion Judge:||TREAT, C. J.|
|Party Name:||John E. Jackson, plaintiff in error, v. William S. Bailey, defendant in error|
|Attorney:||Warren and Edmunds, for plaintiff in error: R. S. Blackwell, for defendant in error:|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Illinois|
Error to McDonough.
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.
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.
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 be governed by its own peculiar circumstances.
The general rules are simple and of easy application. The...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP