Ragan v. Smith & Gordon

1. “A letter received in due course of mail in response to a letter sent by the receiver is presumed, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, to be the letter of the person whose name is signed to it.” Scofield v. Parlin & Orendorff Co., 61 Fed. Rep. 804. To the same effect, see, also, 2 Whart. Ev. § 1328; 1 Taylor, Ev. 183 49; 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. L. 52, referring to 13 Id. 260.

2. Accordingly, where on the trial of an action upon an open account the plaintiff relied upon admissions of its correctness contained in letters so received, written upon letter-heads of the defendant and…