Columbia Finance Company v. Worthy, 2088.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 2088.,2088. |
| Citation | 141 A.2d 185 |
| Parties | COLUMBIA FINANCE COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. Ruth WORTHY, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Seymour Korn, Washington, D. C., with whom Samuel Barker, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
A jury awarded the plaintiff in this action compensatory and punitive damages for the unlawful repossession of her automobile. Defendant, Columbia Finance, appeals from the judgment entered on these verdicts, contesting the submission of the issues on damages to the jury.
In August 1956 plaintiff obtained a loan of $425 from Columbia Finance, for which she executed a note secured by a chattel mortgage on her automobile. The terms of the loan provided for payment in twelve monthly installments of approximately $46 due on the 17th of each month. The entire transaction was negotiated through a Mr. Prince, vice-president of the defendant company, and plaintiff was expressly authorized by him to forward her payments by mail.
Some confusion arose as to interest and insurance charges requiring the assistance of counsel, and plaintiff's first payment, due September 17, was mailed through her attorney. Payments for the succeeding two months were mailed by plaintiff several days before the due date and credited to her account. It is the fourth payment, due December 17, that concerns us in this appeal.
Plaintiff testified that a check drawn in the proper amount, together with her payment book, was deposited in the mail at a post office in this city on Saturday morning, December 15. Her presence in the post office that morning was corroborated, and plaintiff stated the envelope bore her return address. On Monday morning, December 17, she called Columbia Finance, inquired as to its receipt, and was informed by Mr. Prince that he did not know whether the payment had been received as their mail was "all fouled up by the holidays." Sometime during the next night the automobile was repossessed by defendant. The following morning Prince denied receipt of the payment and rejected plaintiff's offer of cash or another check for the sum due. He insisted on payment of the full balance and did not recall his telephone conversation with plaintiff on the 17th, though admittedly he was the only man in the office that morning at the time of the call. Prior to the repossession no attempt was ever made by defendant to inform plaintiff that the payment had not been received, and her check was never returned in the mail. At the conclusion of the evidence the jury returned verdicts of $33 in compensatory damages and $2,000 in punitive damages for the plaintiff.
On at least three occasions in the past the courts of this jurisdiction have held that upon proof of the mailing of a letter, properly addressed and stamped, a presumption is raised that it was received by the addressee.1 Plaintiff's right to the benefit of this presumption was challenged by defendant in its motion for a directed verdict and again in its objection to a jury instruction consistent with the above holdings on the ground that no evidence was introduced as to the address on the envelope and prepayment of postage. Inasmuch as receipt of the payment determines the legality of the repossession, the ruling of the trial court that plaintiff was entitled to the presumption is the pivotal issue in this appeal. If a sufficient foundation in evidence warranting the presumption were not made, then there was no submissible jury issue as to receipt of the payment.
Had plaintiff's evidence on this issue consisted only of proof that the letter was mailed, we would not hesitate to hold that it was insufficient to support the presumption.2 However, defendant, unlike a private individual, is a business firm with a well-known address. There is evidence in the record that plaintiff had previously mailed two payments to it which were received, and the envelope containing the payment in question bore her return...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sitcov v. District of Columbia Bar
...received by the addressee. See Toomey v. District of Columbia, 315 A.2d 565, 567 (D.C.1974) (per curiam) (quoting Columbia Fin. Co. v. Worthy, 141 A.2d 185, 186 (D.C.1958)). Moreover, as we have seen, the Bar retains copies of any mail returned to it by the United States Postal Service as u......
-
Kidd Intern. Home Care, Inc. v. Prince
...has been delivered to the addressee. Toomey v. District of Columbia, 315 A.2d 565, 567 (D.C.1974) (per curiam); Columbia Fin. Co. v. Worthy, 141 A.2d 185, 186 (D.C.1958); see also 9 JOHN HENRY WIGMORE, EVIDENCE § 2519 (Chadbourn ed.1981). Here, of course, the letter was incompletely address......
-
Hilliard v. Adecco Usa, Inc.
...that this presumption is rebuttable. Toomey v. District of Columbia, 315 A.2d 565, 567 (D.C.1974) (per curiam); Columbia Fin. Co. v. Worthy, 141 A.2d 185, 186 (D.C.1958); Holt v. George Washington Life Ins. Co., 123 A.2d 619, 620 (D.C.1956); Legille v. Dann, 178 U.S.App. D.C. 78, 82-83, 544......
-
Momenian v. Davidson
...presumption that the letter "was received by the addressee." Toomey v. D.C., 315 A.2d 565, 567 (D.C. 1974) (quoting Columbia Fin. Co. v. Worthy, 141 A.2d 185, 186 (D.C. 1958)). The opponent of the mailbox rule may rebut the presumption, creating a triable issue of fact for the jury to resol......