Taylor v. Megargee
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia. Feb. 5. — The question here was whether the presumption of payment from lapse of time wras rebutted. A judgment was recovered in 1814. The present sci. fa. issued in 1842. The plea was payment. The plaintiff, to rebut the presumption, proved insolvent discharges anterior to the recovery of the judgment; his great poverty since; payment of his funeral expenses by others, &c.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia. Feb. 5. — The question here was whether the presumption of payment from lapse of time wras rebutted. A judgment was recovered in 1814. The present sci. fa. issued in 1842. The plea was payment. The plaintiff, to rebut the presumption, proved insolvent discharges anterior to the recovery of the judgment; his great poverty since; payment of his funeral expenses by others, &c. The only part of the charge of Stroud, J., which appeared on the record, was the answers to defendant’s points, which, so far as were decided, were :— 1.…
1Per curiam
— It is difficult to see what the act of 1797, to limit the duration of decedents’ debts, had to do with a question of presumptive payment raised by lapse of time, or what the jury had to do with the interpretation of the rule of presumption. It was the business of the court to interpret it, and for the jury to apply it thus interpreted to the evidence. The material question raised by the assignment of error is, whether the mere poverty or insolvency of the defendant was sufficient to rebut the presumption, from the lapse of twenty years. The cases quoted on the part of the plaintiff in error…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Sheafer v. WoodsideSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Estate of DevereuxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Bartram's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Guilloû v. RedfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903