Skip to content


Penrose Vs. Hart - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number1 U.S. 378
AppellantPenrose
RespondentHart
Excerpt:
penrose v. hart - 1 u.s. 378 (1788) u.s. supreme court penrose v. hart, 1 u.s. 378 (1788) 1 u.s. 378 (dall.) penrose v. hart court of common pleas of philadelphia county december term, 1788 on a rule to shew cause why the judgment confessed by warrant of attorney in this case should not be opened, fisher stated that several partial payments had been made by the defendant, page 1 u.s. 378, 379 which the plaintiff had applied first to the discharge of the arrearages of interest; whereas he insisted, that it ought first to have been deducted from the principal debt. but shippen, president, said, that the practice had been otherwise; and he thought with great reason and propriety. he remembered to have heard of an old decision when.....
Judgment:
PENROSE v. HART - 1 U.S. 378 (1788)
U.S. Supreme Court PENROSE v. HART, 1 U.S. 378 (1788)

1 U.S. 378 (Dall.)

Penrose
v.
Hart

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

December Term, 1788

On a rule to shew cause why the Judgment confessed by warrant of Attorney in this case should not be opened, Fisher stated that several partial payments had been made by the Defendant,

Page 1 U.S. 378, 379

which the Plaintiff had applied first to the discharge of the arrearages of interest; whereas he insisted, that it ought first to have been deducted from the principal debt.

But Shippen, President, said, that the practice had been otherwise; and he thought with great reason and propriety. He remembered to have heard of an old decision when Logan was Chief Justice, in which it was expressly settled, that money paid on account of a bond, should first be applied to discharge the interest due at the time of the payment, and the residue, if any, credited towards satisfaction of the principal. By this rule, the Gentlemen of the Bar had uniformly governed their calculations before the Revolution.

Lewis, for the Plaintiff, insisted that the practice was the same at the present day, and appealed to the Attornies in Court, who confirmed his assertion.* Footnotes

[ Footnote * ] See ant. 124.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //