Hansen v. Rounsavell

Citations

• 74 Ill. 238

Syllabus

<p>1. Payment—direction as to application implied. A direction as to the application of a payment may be implied from circumstances. An agreement before payment, or even the expression of a wish on the part of the debtor as to how payment shall be applied, will amount to a direction to that effect.</p> <p>2. Same — instruction as to application. Where there is evidence tending to show a previous agreement as to the application of payments, an instruction that if the debtor gave no direction as to the application of certain payments, then the creditor had the right to apply them on the oldest account due at the time, is not so faulty as to justify a reversal. It would be better to have used the word agreement than the word instruction.</p> <p>3. Same — application when there is a surety. Where an obligor makes a general payment to his obligee, to whom he is indebted not only on a bond upon which there is security, but otherwise, the surety of the obligor cannot require that the payment shall be applied to the bond, unless aided by circumstances which show that such application was intended by the obligor.</p> <p>4. Judgment — whether sufficiently certain as to amount. When the verdict in debt upon a penal bond is for the debt and $949.40 damages, and the plaintiff remits $54.50 of the damages, and a judgment for the debt, to be fully satisfied upon the payment of $894.90, the damages assessed by the jury, except amount remitted together with costs, is sufficiently cer'tain, as the exception will be referred to the sum found by the jury and not to the sum of $894.90.</p>