Jensen v. McCorkell

Citations

• 154 Pa. 323

Syllabus

<p>Promissory notes — Notice of protest — ■Mailing letter — Evidence.</p> <p>Depositing in the postoffice a properly addressed, prepaid letter, raises a natural presumption, founded on common experience, that it reached its destination by due course of mail. Mailing a letter in such a way is prima facie evidence that it was received by the person to whom it was addressed, but such prima facie proof may be rebutted by evidence showing that it was notreceived: Whitmore v. Dwellinghouse Insurance,Co., 148 Pa. 405.</p> <p>In an action against an indorsee of a promissory note, plaintiff’s evidence was to the effect that, on the day the note was dishonored, a notice of protest properly addressed to defendant at “Philadelphia Driving Park, Philadelphia,” was deposited in the postoffice ; that on the envelope was the name and the address of the notary who sent the notice, with a request for return if not delivered. It also appeared that the carrier delivery service did not extend to the “Philadelphia Driving Park,” but that those who resided there, including defendant, received their mail regularly at the sub-postoffice in the vicinity. Defendant denied that he ever received the notice: Held, that the evidence was sufficient to leave to the jury the question whether the notice had been received by defendant.</p>