Morrison v. Collins

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Morrison v. Collins, 127 Pa. 28 (Pa. 1889)
17 A. 753; 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1075
Clark, Green, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett

Morrison v. Collins

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The note in controversy was under seal. In such case, the .presumption of payment does nob arise until twenty years have elapsed. At least this is the general rule. There are cases which intimate that a presumption of payment may arise in less than twenty years ; that is to say, there may be such circumstances surrounding a case as would justify a jury in finding the fact of payment within the twenty years. Thus, if it be proved that the holder of the note has been constantly pressed for money, while the maker was abundantly able to pay, such fact, with other circumstances, might justify the presumption of payment. The single circumstance that the defendant was able to pay, would not be a fact from which this presumption would arise in less than twenty years. For, if the defendant is able to pay, the plaintiff may be able and willing to wait, and within the twenty years the burden is upon the defendant to prove payment, or such facts or circumstances from which the jury may properly infer payment. An examination of the case shows that the rulings of the learned judge below were quite as favorable to the defendant as he had any right to expect.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
B. G. MORRISON v. C. COLLINS
Cited By
8 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
1. In an action upon a note under seal, brought within twenty years from the time the right of action accrued, the burden is upon the defendant to prove payment, or facts and circumstances from which the jury may properly infer payment.* 2. In such action, the fact that the holder was constantly pressed for money, while the defendant was abundantly able to pay, with other circumstances, might justify the presumption of payment within the twenty years, yet such presumption would not arise from the single fact that the defendant was able to pay. 3. The fact that in a settlement of open accounts between the parties, about six yeai'S after the date of the note, a balance equal to the amount of the note was found in favor of the maker, while not establishing a set-off, because of the statute of limitations, was yet admissible as tending to establish payment.