Sheafer v. Woodside

Citations

• 257 Pa. 276
• 101 A. 753
• 1 A.L.R. 775
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 723

Syllabus

<p>Mortgages — Presumption of payment • — ■ Evidence — Rebutting presumption — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. The rule that after the lapse of twenty years debts by specialty are presumed to be paid is a rule of convenience and policy resulting from a necessary regard for the peace and security of society, and also for the debtor, who should not be called upon to defend stale claims at a time when witnesses are dead and papers lost or destroyed. This presumption does not bar the debt, however. Unlike the statute of limitations, it is merely a rule of evidence affecting the burden of proof, and no new promise is required as the basis of an action. Within twenty yéars the burden of proving payment is on the debtor, after that time it shifts to the creditor. To rebut the presumption any competent evidence tending to show the debt is not in fact paid will be received. Although it need not be of the same quality as required to remove the bar of the statute of limitations, it should, however, be clear qnd convincing, especially where suit is not brought until after the death of the debtor.</p> <p>2. Upon a scire facias issued in August, 1915, upon a mortgage made in 1876, where the administrator of the estate of the last survivor of the mortgagors pleaded payment, and at the trial relied upon the presumption of payment arising by reason of lapse of more than twenty years but there was proof of a long continued inability of the debtors to pay, that the surviving debtor recognized the existence of the indebtedness in 1914, stating in effect her inability to pay, and requesting the witness to see the creditor and ask indulgence; that the witness complied with the wishes of the mortgagor and, as a result of the interview, the debtor received a letter informing her that no steps to enforce payment of the indebtedness would be taken during her lifetime, the evidence was sufficient to overcome the presumption of payment, and the. case was for the jury, and the jury having found a verd