Smith's Estate

Ladner, J.,

dissenting. — I would dismiss the exceptions in this case because there are sufficient circumstances in the evidence to support the learned auditing judge’s finding as a “presumption of fact” that the deceased mortgagor’s personal liability was released.

The three principles of law governing this case have been most recently restated and elucidated in Conrad’s Estate, 333 Pa. 561, and may be set forth categorically as follows:

1. The distinction between a “legal presumption of payment” and a “presumption of fact of payment” must be carefully observed. The former can arise only after…