Guilloû v. Redfield

Citations

• 205 Pa. 293
• 54 A. 886
• 1903 Pa. LEXIS 563

Syllabus

<p>Bond — Presumption of payment — Insolvency of debtor.</p> <p>Mere poverty or insolvency of an obligor in a bond, is not sufficient to rebut a presumption of payment after twenty years, unless it is such as to have created a continued inability to pay during the whole of that time. Proof of the insolvency of the debtor alone will not rebut the presumption of payment, much less will proof that during only a part of the time he was unable to meet other obligations, be effective.</p> <p>The presumption that a bond twenty years from its maturity has been paid is not rebutted by payments alleged to have been on account of the bond, but shown to have been on other accounts, and by the insolvency of the obligor, when such insolvency is not complete and continuous during the whole period.</p> <p>Practice, G. P.— Trial — Exceptions.</p> <p>When the court on motion has stricken out the testimony of a witness, and no exception is taken at the time, the court cannot after a nonsuit has been entered, and the case ended, note an exception to the striking out of the evidence.</p>