Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • J. A. Egderly and W. S. Pierce, for the plaintiff. G. E. Beacham and Frink Batchelder, for the defendant. A cancelled check is not evidence of a debt due the drawer from the payee. "The natural inference from giving a check is, that it was given in payment of a debt due the payee from the drawer." Pars. Notes 84; Fletcher v. Manning, 12 M. W. 570. "A check presented and paid is no evidence of money lent or advanced by the banker to the customer. On the contrary, it is prima facie evidence of the repayment, to the amount of the check, by the banker to the customer, of money lodged previously in the banker's hands." Byles Bills 83; Flemming's Ex'rs v. McClain, 13 Pa. St. 177; Baker v. Williamson, 4 Pa. St. 469. Unless it is shown upon what consideration and under what circumstances a check is given, proof of its delivery and payment is not sufficient evidence of a debt. Aubert v. Walsh, 4 Taun. 293.
Judges
  • DOE, C. J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • J. A. Egderly and W. S. Pierce, for the plaintiff. G. E. Beacham and Frink Batchelder, for the defendant. A cancelled check is not evidence of a debt due the drawer from the payee. "The natural inference from giving a check is, that it was given in payment of a debt due the payee from the drawer." Pars. Notes 84; Fletcher v. Manning, 12 M. W. 570. "A check presented and paid is no evidence of money lent or advanced by the banker to the customer. On the contrary, it is prima facie evidence of the repayment, to the amount of the check, by the banker to the customer, of money lodged previously in the banker's hands." Byles Bills 83; Flemming's Ex'rs v. McClain, 13 Pa. St. 177; Baker v. Williamson, 4 Pa. St. 469. Unless it is shown upon what consideration and under what circumstances a check is given, proof of its delivery and payment is not sufficient evidence of a debt. Aubert v. Walsh, 4 Taun. 293.
Judges
  • DOE, C. J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

FALL v. HAINES, Ex'x.

The mere delivery of money by A to B is not evidence of B's promise to repay it.

DOE, C. J.

The plaintiff, having paid John $2,110.56 at one time, and $560.47 fifteen months afterward, produces no notes or other written evidence of John's express promises to repay those sums, and no evidence that there were such writings. The evidence introduced at the trial does not shift the burden of proof, and has no tendency to show it to be more probable that the payments were loans than that they were payments of debts, or parts of other transactions that would not include the receiver's obligation of repayment.

Exceptions overruled.

BLODGETT, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

FALL v. HAINES
(Jun 1, 1889)