Knowles v. Waller

Citations

• 23 Del. 220

Syllabus

<p>Scire Facias On Judgment—Presumption of Payment from Lapse of Time—Presumption Rebuttable—Evidence— Transactions with Deceased—Insolvency of Defendant—Nonsuit— Statute.</p> <p>1. There is no Statute of Limitations in this State as to judgments; but there is a well settled rule of law as to presumption of payment arising after the lapse of twenty years. This is not an irrebuttable presumption, but it stands until it is rebutted by lawful and proper evidence. The onus of rebutting it rests upon the plaintiff who claims that the judgment is still valid.</p> <p>2. There is a statute which provides, “That in actions or proceedings by or against executors, administrators or guardians in which judgment or decree may be rendered for or against them, neither party shall be allowed to testify against the other as to any transaction with or statement by the testator intestate or ward unless called to testify thereto by the opposite party,” but there is nothing in this statute which prevents the plaintiff from testifying as to transactions between him and the defendant administrator.</p> <p>3. Payment or non-payment of a judgment by the deceased is clearly a transaction within the meaning of the statute,</p> <p>4. Held, that the evidence in the case was not sufficient to prove, or to warrant a jury in finding, that the estate of the deceased was insolvent during the long period which elapsed after the judgment was entered, or during the period of twenty years next before the action was brought.</p> <p>5. Held further, that the presumption of payment from lapse of time was not rebutted, and that a nonsuit should be entered.</p>