bow against lucas one indebt to the same person on different contract may at  the time of payment apply it to which he please but if he pay it general the  creditor may apply it as he please in debt for rend the defendant plead nil  debet and there be a verdict for the plaintiff and it be now move by sergeant  urling by the permission of lee c j who try the cause at Bedford assize to set  aside the verdict and the case as prove on the trial the c I report to be this  the defendant be administrator to one Perrot who be the original lessee and  die indebt to the plaintiff for rend and since his decease the defendant have  occupy the land comprise in Perrot lease in his own right as assignee and as  such be also indebt to the plaintiff for rend and at the trial it be insist  for the defendant that he have discharge all the rend due from he in his own  right and for that purpose be produce the two receipt follow videlicet April  receive of Mr Lucas for the rend due to Mr bow from the late Mr Perrot October  receive of Andrews Mr Lucas for rend due to Mr bow and it be urge for the  defendant that he may apply the money pay on this last Andrews er p receipt in  discharge of the rend due in his own time but the c I say that upon the trial  he be of opinion that the rule quod whoever to loosen be ad manner to loosen  be not applicable here for though a person indebt to another on different  contract may at the time of payment apply the money towards discharge of what  contract he please yet if be pay money general it be in the power of the  person who receive it to apply it as be please and he say he be still of the  same opinion for which purpose he cite man and western vern but it be now  argue for the defendant that it be most reasonable to suppose that the money  be pay by he in his own discharge and it be a foreign intendment to suppose  that it be pay on the account of another when it be not so express vern if the  money have real be pay on his own account the receipt can not have be draw in  a more proper manner than the present so that here in effect there be a  application of the money by the payer at the time of payment which accord to  the above rule be certain in his power beside as the money first pay be  express mention in the receipt to be on the account of the intestate and  nothing of this kind be mention in the last the money pay hereon must be take  to be pay in discharge of his own debt it be also urge that if the last  receipt be construe in a different manner it may great injure the defendant  because perhaps the have no asset but the c I say that of this no evidence be  give the rest of the court without bear the plaintiff counsel declare  themselves of the same opinion with the c I and for the same reason mention by  he and page just say that it seem by the first receipt to Andrews have be the  defendant intention first to discharge the intestate debt and the last receipt  must be construe agreeable to the first motion therefore deny Goddard Cox  stram two Bloss and cut there cite S p v ld ray