Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1922 Excerpt:...by such misapplication, which would be in such amount as he would be entitled to credit for upon a pro rata distribution of the payment over the entire mortgage indebtedness. But the plea avers that, as the giving of the mortgage was a condition required by the defendant before indorsing the notes, a sale of the mortgaged property without his knowledge by consent of the mortgagee operated to discharge the defendant to the amount realized from the sale. The general rule, universally recognized, is that the right to apply payments Is one strictly existing between the original parties, and no third person has any authority to Insist upon an appropriation of the money in his own favor, where neither the debtor nor creditor has made or required any such appropriation. See 21 R. C. L. p. 107. The rule is settled In this state that the debtor or party paying the money, may in case he chooses to do so direct its appropriation. See Battle v. Jennings Naval Stores Co., 74 Fla. 12, 75 South. 949: Petroutsa v. H. C. Schrader Co., 76 Fla. 574, 80 South. 486. 4 This general rule, however, applies to cases only where the principal makes the 90 SO.--30 payment from funds which are hts own, and free from any equity In favor of the surety to have the money applied in payment of the debt for which he is liable See Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Ilerber, 68 Minn. 420, 71N. W. 624; Kyle v. Chattahoochee Nat. Bank, 96 Ga. 693, 24 S. E. 149; Mack v. Adler (C. C.) 22 Fed. 570; 30 Cyc. 1251; 21 R. O. L. p. 109; Bross v. McNicholas, 66 Or. 42, 133 Pac. 782, Ann. Oas. 1915B, 1272. The question Is: Does the averment in the plea, viz. that the giving of the mortgage was a condition required by Wilson, the defendant, before indorsing the notes, show an equity in favor of the defendant to have t...