Sayers v. Kent
Sayers v. Kent
1 Sadler 97; 1 A. 442; 1885 Pa. LEXIS 630
Sayers v. Kent
Opinion of the Court
The right of the plaintiff to recover depended on his ability to prove an existing debt due by the garnishee.
Having attempted to do so by proving a specific contract, he-was clearly estopped from denying the validity of that contract. Had he succeeded in proving it to be invalid, he would have-; proved that the debt did not exist.
' There is no presumption of fraud in the fact that the defendant paid the instalments before they became due, and was allowed a rebate of the interest on the sums thus paid.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.