Porter v. Nelson's Exrs.

Citations

• 121 Pa. 628
• 15 A. 852
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 698

Syllabus

<p>1. Whether facts and circumstances relied upon to rebut the presumption of payment of a specialty after the lapse of twenty years, are of sufficient force for the purpose, if established, is a preliminary question of law for the court; but whether they are sufficiently established, if controverted, is a question of fact for the jury: See Gregory v. Commonwealth, preceding; Breneman’s App., and Runner’s App., following.</p> <p>2. In the present case, evidence of oral admissions of the debtor, made within twenty years before suit, and tending to show non-payment of</p> <p>. the indebtedness, were properly submitted to the jury, in connection with other evidence of facts from which payment might be inferred.</p> <p>3. In a scire facias upon a judgment, with notice to the widow and devisees of the defendant, who is dead, the fact that the bond with warrant of attorney on which the judgment was confessed was found among the papers of the debtor after his death, raises a presumption of fact that the bond was obtained by payment of the debt.</p> <p>4. In a suit by a claimant living, against the executors of a decedent, the testimony of the devisees is admissible to prove a fact occurring after the decedent’s death though tending to prove inferentially the existence of the fact prior thereto: Rothrock v. Gallaher, 91 Pa. 108; Stephens v. Cotterell, 99 Pa. 188, followed; Foster v. Collner, 107 Pa. 305, and Adams v. Edwards, 115 Pa. 211, distinguished.</p>