Coleman v. Erie Trust Co.

Citations

• 255 Pa. 63
• 99 A. 217
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 528

Syllabus

<p>Judgments — Presumption of payment — Evidence to rebut presumption.</p> <p>1. The presumption, arising from lapse of time, that a judgment has been paid, is not conclusive, but is merely a presumption of fact which is rebuttable. The presumption does not arise where there is affirmative proof that the debt has not been paid, or where there are circumstances that sufficiently account for the delay of the creditors.</p> <p>2. A son recovered a judgment against his father in New Jersey in 1893. The father removed from the state in 1899 and did not return prior to his death, which occurred in 1913. In an action 'on the judgment it appeared that by the law of New Jersey an action may be brought upon a judgment within twenty years after the date of such judgment, but that if the defendant removes from the state after judgment is obtained, the time during which he is absent is not to be computed as part of the limited period in which action may be brought. The defendant relied upon the presumption of payment. The plaintiff testified that the debt had never been paid, and such fact was undisputed. It further appeared that the debtor was the father, of the creditor, that the former had been for years in straitened circumstances, and that he had but a small income which would have been seriously disturbed had the payment of tbe judgment been pressed. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to binding instructions in his favor.</p>