57.Time for application, 70 C.J.S.

Payment 57

70 C.J.S. Payment 57
Corpus Juris Secundum
Database updated December 2015
Payment
by Elizabeth Williams, J.D.
VII. Application of Payments
C. By Creditor
2. Sufficiency, Timing, and Effect of Application
Topic Summary References Correlation Table
57. Time for application
West's Key Number Digest
West's Key Number Digest, Payment 39(8)
There is conflicting authority as to whether the creditor is required to exercise his or her right of application of a payment
at the time the payment is made.

While there is authority that the creditor must exercise his or her right of application of the debtor's payment at the time of
payment or it is lost, 1 there is also authority that the creditor is not compelled to exercise the right of application at the time
the payment is made. 2 Some decisions state broadly that the creditor's right of application is not limited in time, 3 while others
hold that the appropriation must be made promptly 4 or within a reasonable time, 5 at least where the rights of third persons
would be affected by a delay. 6
There is authority that the application may or must be made before a controversy has arisen 7 or before suit is brought. 8 The
debtor and creditor's agreement, made within a reasonable time after the payment, to apply the payment to a claim which
matured in the interim may be given effect. 9

Footnotes
Fla.Frieslander v. Mahon, 400 So. 2d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1981).
1
Wash.Diettrich Bros. v. Anderson, 183 Wash. 574, 48 P.2d 921 (1935).
2
Or.Fatland v. Wentworth & Irwin, 149 Or. 277, 40 P.2d 68, 97 A.L.R. 339 (1935).
3
Fla.McElwain Associates, Inc. v. Culbreth, 417 So. 2d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1982).
4
U.S.F. H. McGraw & Co. v. Milcor Steel Co., 149 F.2d 301 (C.C.A. 2d Cir. 1945); Parrish v. Haynes, 62 F.2d 105 (C.C.A. 5th
5

6
7

Cir. 1932).
AlaskaJalasko Associates, Inc. v. Newberry Energy Corp., 663 P.2d 946 (Alaska 1983).
Or.Fatland v. Wentworth & Irwin, 149 Or. 277, 40 P.2d 68, 97 A.L.R. 339 (1935).
U.S.Standard Sur. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. U.S., for Use and Benefit of Campbell, 154 F.2d 335, 164 A.L.R. 935 (C.C.A. 10th
Cir. 1946).
Lake Union Drydock Co. v. M/V Polar Viking, 446 F. Supp. 1286 (W.D. Wash. 1978).
Neb.Diesel Service, Inc. v. Accessory Sales, Inc., 205 Neb. 381, 288 N.W.2d 258 (1980).
U.S.F. H. McGraw & Co. v. Milcor Steel Co., 149 F.2d 301 (C.C.A. 2d Cir. 1945).
Neb.Diesel Service, Inc. v. Accessory Sales, Inc., 205 Neb. 381, 288 N.W.2d 258 (1980).

2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

 57.Time for application, 70 C.J.S. Payment 57

Wash.Yancovich v. Cavanaugh Lumber Co., Inc., 20 Wash. App. 347, 581 P.2d 1057 (Div. 2 1978).
U.S.F. H. McGraw & Co. v. Milcor Steel Co., 149 F.2d 301 (C.C.A. 2d Cir. 1945).

End of Document

2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.