Penrose v. Hart

Decided December 15, 1788

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1788-12-15

On a rule to shew cause why the Judgement confessed by warrant of Attorney in this case Should not be opened, Fisher stated that several partial payments had been made by the Defendant, 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. insifted that the practice was the same at the present day, and appealed to the Attornies in Court, who confirmed his…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1788-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1844

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1But

Shippen, President,

¶2said, 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.