McMichan's Estate

Citations

• 220 Pa. 187
• 69 A. 596
• 1908 Pa. LEXIS 746

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Presumption—Payment—Outstanding duebill.</p> <p>The presumption that a duebill outstanding in the hands of the original payee is a subsisting, undischarged obligation, while very strong, is not conclusive; in other words, it is not a strictly legal presumption having the effect to shut out further investigation, and exclude the functions of a jury. It simply stands for proof until rebutted; and where it is met by opposing presumptions arising out of facts in the case, the question of payment cannot be determined by the court as matter of law, but must be submitted to the jury.</p> <p>The presumption of nonpayment arising from the circumstance that a duebill is outstanding, may be met by the facts that subsequent to its date the payee had in his hands the means of payment which he made no attempt to apply, but paid over without deduction, and that for two years after the death of the maker he took no steps to secure its payment and did not make known to anyone its existence.</p> <p>Evidence — Presumptions—Conflicting testimony — Findings of fact by court — Practice, C. P.</p> <p>The rule which gives to a finding of fact by the court the effect of a verdict, recognizes no distinctions between a finding which results from weighing conflicting presumptions from admitted facts, and one which is a conclusion from conflicting testimony. In either case the finding is allowed to prevail except as clear error is shown.</p>