Gregory's Exrs. v. Commonwealth
Citations
- 121 Pa. 611
- 15 A. 452
- 1888 Pa. LEXIS 697
Syllabus
<p>1. In the absence oí sufficient explanatory evidence, all debts excepted out of the statute of limitations, act of March 27, 1713, 1 Sm. L. 76, unclaimed and unrecognized for twenty years, are presumed to have been paid.</p> <p>2. This presumption, an artificial rule of law and unlike the said statute of limitations, is not a bar to an action on the original contract, and therefore a new promise is not necessary to sustain the suit.</p> <p>3. As the action is not founded on the new promise, but on the original indebtedness, it is of no consequence that the admission of non-payment is accompanied by a refusal to pay.</p> <p>4. The evidence to rebut the presumption of payment after twenty years, must bo satisfactory and convincing; especially, when the suit is not brought until after the death of the debtor.</p> <p>5. Evidence admissible to show that the debt is in fact unpaid, may consist of defendant’s admissions made to the creditor himself, or to his agent, or even to a stranger; but an admission will not be as readily implied from language addressed casually to a stranger, as when addressed to the creditor in reply to a demand made.</p> <p>6. In such a case, the defendant stands upon a presumption of law binding upon both court and jury until invalidated by proof; the plaintiff in rebuttal, upon a presumption of fact, which he claims to arise out of the evidence.</p> <p>7. Wherefore, whether the facts sought to be established in rebuttal of the presumption are true, is a question of fact for the jury; but, whether, if true, they legitimately give rise to the inference of non-payment, is a question of law for the court.</p> <p>8. McLean v. Finley, 2 P. & W. 97, and Summerville v. Holliday, 1 W. 507, abandoned; dissenting opinion of Kennedt, J., in Summerville v. Holliday, 1 W. 515; the later cases, Backestoss v. Commonwealth, 8 W. 287 ; Delany v. Robinson, 2 Wh. 506 ; McQuesney v. Hiester, 33 Pa. 435 ; Bentley’s App., 99 Pa. 500; Peters’s App., 106 Pa. 340; Las
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- an individual cannot challenge an administrative action if no substantial interest of the person or entity is affected by that action
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Clark, Gordon, Green, Paxson, Sterrett, Trtjnkey, Williams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.