Lowrey v. Robinson

Citations

• 141 Pa. 189
• 21 A. 513
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1061

Syllabus

<p>1. Where evidence was given without objection, the refusal by the court below of a motion to strike it out. is not reviewable in the Supreme Court: Montgomery v. Cunningham, 104 Pa. 349. Nor, is the refusal of the defendant’s motion for the entry of a judgment of nonsuit: Seliubkagel v. Dierstein, 131 Pa. 46.</p> <p>2. An unexplained delivery of money or a check by one pei’son to another, does not of itself create the relation of debtor and creditor between the parties; the presumption, in such case, is that the money or check was received in payment of an antecedent debt or a loan.</p> <p>8. In respect of the statute of limitations, a declaration of an intention to pay, made to one not the creditor or his known agent, is not the equivalent of a promise to pay; it is more in the nature of the expression of a desire to pay, and from this there is no implication of a promise.</p> <p>4. No distinct and unconditional promise to pay being disclosed, and no clear and unequivocal acknowledgment and identification of the debt, consistent with a promise to pay it, and the proofs of the original indebtedness being wholly inadequate, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.*</p>