Shields v. Pringle
Shields v. Pringle
Opinion of the Court
OPINION of the;Court, by
This was an action of debt, upon a bond bearing date the 7th August 1786, and payable the 7th of December of the same year. The action was commenced the 7th of July 1809, The defendant pleaded payment on the day, and upon the trial of the cause relied exclusively upon the presumption arising Srom the lapse of time, The plaintiff having shewn that at the time when the bond was executed, he resided in the state of Pennsylvania, and has continued to do so ever since, and,.that the defendant was at that time, and has been everfsince a i inhabitant of this country, moved the court to instruct the jury that the presumption of payment from the lapse of time was not applicable to the present case ; but the court overruled die motion, and instructed the jur> that the ptsumpdon of payment did apply to this case and would operate as a bar of the action, unless counteracted by n butting testimony. To this opinion and instruction of the court the plaintiff excepted, and has brought the case before this court.
Tnere is a manifest distinction between those cases whete length of time operates as a bar to the action, and those in which it can be used only as matter of evidence. In a case coming within the statute of limi-. taüous, the lapse of time prescribed by the statute is pleadable as a bar to the action, and the jury would be concluded by it, though they were convinced that the debt still remained due and'unpaid. But where length of time is not per se a bar, but used merely as evidence, It is a matter for the consideration of the jury to'efedit • it or not, and to draw their ini trence the one way or the other, according to circumstances. I here is no statute of limitation which prescribes a time for bringing an action upon a bond, nor will any length oí time operate as a bar to such action.
Bat where the bond has been given more than twenty years, the jury may upon the plea of payment presume the debt to be discharged, and even in a shorter period, where there are auxiliary circumstances to fortify the : presumpuon, payment may be presumed. The presumption however arising from length of time, is a mere Ijjresiimptioa of feet, which may be repelled by any ck*
The judgment must be reversed with costs, the verdict set aside, and the cause remanded for a new trial to be had, &c.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.