Case Name: Rudolph Henry et al., Resp'ts, v. Charles F. Diedrich, App'lt
Court: Buffalo Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-11-19
Citations: 27 N.Y. St. Rep. 209
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rudolph Henry et al., Resp’ts, v. Charles F. Diedrich, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 27
Pages: 209–216

Head Matter:
Rudolph Henry et al., Resp’ts, v. Charles F. Diedrich, App’lt.
(Superior Court of Buffalo, General Term,
Filed November 19, 1889.)
Payment—Application op.
In an action for meats sold to defendant between May 13th and June 21st, it appeared that on June 1st a new partner was taken in the firm, of which fact defendant knew nothing. At that time defendant had paid $25 and owed $72.50. In this action for the price of the meat sold, the bill of particulars credited $115.56 as paid. Defendant testified that on May 31st he owed $72.50; that June 3rd, he made a payment on the new account, but afterwards stated that he knew of no new account. Plaintiff testified that $72.50 was due. Held, that from the evidence the court was justified in finding that the subsequent payments were applied on the sales made by the new firm.
(Beckwith, Ch. J., dissenting.)
Appeal from a judgment rendered by the municipal court of Buffalo in favor of plaintiff.
John R. Hazel, for resp’ts ; E. B. Vedder, for app’lt.

Opinion:
Hatch, J.
The complaint is for meat sold defendant on account and demanded judgment for $154.18. Accompanying the complaint is a verified bill of particulars, filed by plaintiff, which sets out items of the account commencing May 13, 1887, and ending June 21st in the same year, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $270.74. Commencing with May 31, 1887, and ending on June 21st same year, defendant was credited with four items of payments amounting in the aggregate to $115.56. This sum is in the bill of particulars deducted from the $270.74, leaving a balance as therein stated of $154.18. It should be, when correctly subtracted, $155.18. The answer, as appears from the statement of the return, was a general denial, but the answer as returned not only denies but alleges a portion of the-meat sold to be bad, on account of which no liability arose, also-a counter claim for over payments. Mo testimony was offered to-show payments beyond such as were admitted, and no attempt-was made to show any of the meat bad. On the trial it appeared by the testimony of Rudolph Henry that he and his brother composed the firm of Henry Brothers; that such firm was so continued down to and including the 31st day of May, 1887. On June 1st following, one Swain became a member of the firm, and so remained during all subsequent dealings between the parties. Mo formal change was made in the heading of the account kept-between the parties hereto after Swain's entry into the firm. On said 31st day of May defendant was indebted to plaintiffs upon the account in the sum of $97.50, and on that day paid to apply thereon $25.00. Commencing with June 3rd and ending June 21, 1887, defendant obtained from time to time various quantities of meat aggregating in amount $173.24, the first item of which amounted to $40.04, and he thereafter paid, according to the testimony of plaintiff, $90.56, and according to the testimony of defendant $80.56. This was the status of the accounts when this action was brought.
Plaintiff testified upon the trial to the sales of the meat, the payment of the twenty-five dollars and also the subsequent sums, and says: " At the time he paid these last payments he-owed me for the (first) items above stated. I don't know whether I ever told Diedrich that Swain had come in. The-only payments he ever paid before Swain went into co-partnership was twenty-five dollars. He owes plaintiff a balance of $72.50. Cross examined. I made up the $72.50 by adding-up the items before read, $97.50, and deducting $25." The defendant testified that he knew nothing about Swain's being a partner until the trial; that he made all the payments upon the whole account and had no talk as to what account they should be applied on, and that he owed no money for meats bought, since the 31st of May, when he made the payment of June 3, of $15.56. Cross examined. " At that time, May 31, I paid $25-on this account and owed the balance $72.50. I had nothing more until June 3, then they struck a new account. What I paid on June 3, $15.56, was on the new account. Re-direct. I continued right on as I began. They never told me any dif ferent. I knew of no new account. I kept it in one account." The plaintiff then gave evidence of the meats sold after the formation of the new firm as hereinbefore stated. With an exception, to be hereafter noted, this constitutes all the evidence. The claim is now made that this action cannot be maintained for the reason that it clearly appears that the payments made should have been and were applied upon the earlier items of the account and that they were more than sufficient to extinguish them; that if a right of action exists it is in favor of the members constituting the new firm. The doctrine respecting the application of payments is reasonably well settled. A debtor has the right when making a payment to dictate, when there are separate accounts, upon which account the money so paid shall be applied. If, however, he omits to make such direction, but pays generally, the creditor may apply it as he wills. National Bank of Newburgh v. Bigler, 83 N. Y., 63-64.
If, however, neither party makes the application, the law will apply it in accordance with the' justice of the case. Bank of California v. Webb, 94 N. Y., 472.
We are of opinion, upon the facts in this case, that the court below correctly applied the payments. Plaintiff was not concluded by the demand of his complaint, or upon the proceedings, by the statement in the bill of particulars, if in strictness he was bound by the latter, yet the parties appeared and litigated the question upon a claim that defendant was only indebted to plaintiffs in the sum due the old firm, and no objection to the evidence or suggestion was made of any variance between such position and the statement of the bill, but the evidence was all received and submitted to the judge for his determination.
Upon the evidence, it was quite competent for him to find that not only was it the intention of plaintiff to apply the payments upon the sales made by the new firm, as testified to by him, but he was authorized to find that defendant knew and so understood it, as defendant stated in terms that the first payment made after the formation of the new firm was made to apply upon the new account, which could only have been the account of the new firm. It is true that upon his re-examination he stated that he knew of but one account, and no new one at all, but this simply presented conflicting statements upon the same subject, and it was clearly within the province of the court to say which statement it would credit In addition to this, the court was also authorized to find, from the testimony of defendant, that in any event there was something due plaintiffs from defendant. The claim of plaintiffs is $72.50 and interest. The whole amount of payments credited by plaintiff to defendant, less the first $25, is $90.56, as stated by defendant $80.56. As already stated, the first of these items is $40.04 paid for a bill of meat purchased June 3d, as to which defendant testified: " I paid for the purchase of June 3d $40.04 in cash." This was clearly for the item due the new firm, and if paid as stated, reduced the aggregate of payments to $50.56, leaving due $21.94 upon plaintiff's account, for which they would be clearly entitled to judgment. But aside from this, we think that it satisfactorily appears that the meats sold by the new firm, upon which payments were made, was their property, for which they were entitled to pay, and that no injustice is done in so applying them. On the contrary, we think the court was authorized to find, from the evidence and the circumstances, that it was equitable so to do. Thurber v. McIntire, 9 N. Y. State Rep., 816.
We have no hesitancy in arriving at this result, for the reason that upon the trial no evidence was given or claim made but that defendant was indebted for all the meat sold, less payments. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed, with costs.
Titus, J., concurs.