Marshall v. Sarafin

The defendant claims that she should prevail because:

1. The presumption of payment of the notes, which matured in 1916, runs in her favor.

2. That the notes have actually been paid through conveyance of two lots owned by the life tenant.

3. That the mortgages have been extinguished by conveyance of the mortgaged property by the life tenant to the mortgagee.

4. That failure to make payment of principal or interest by the defendant, or her predecessor in title, since maturity of the notes bars enforcement under the statute of limitations.

5. Adverse possession in her favor.

The court's task in…