Grossman v. Thunder

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: ELKIN, J.
• Citation: 61 A. 904,212 Pa. 274
• Decision Date: 22 May 1905
• Parties: GROSSMAN v. THUNDER.

61 A. 904
212 Pa. 274

GROSSMAN
v.
THUNDER.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 22, 1905.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County.

Action by Anna Grossman against Mary Forney Thunder, executrix of Susan C. Forney, deceased. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The trial court charged as follows:

61 A. 905

"The action is one to recover for services on an express contract, as well as on a quantum meruit, which services were rendered to Susan C. Forney by the plaintiff up to and prior to November 12, 1901. On that day the plaintiff signed a receipt, which reads as follows: 'November 12, 1901. I, Annie Grossman, of the city of Lancaster, Pa., being in the employ of Miss Susan C. Forney up to this date, do hereby acknowledge that I received full pay and compensation for all services, labor, care, and attention that I have given unto said Miss Susan C. Forney, and I have no claim against her or her estate for any services whatsoever, acknowledging payment in full by this receipt. Witness my hand the day and year aforesaid.' Signed by Anna Grossman, and witnessed by Mary L. Wiley and Tillie May Forney. While a receipt for money paid is prima facie evidence of its payment, it is not conclusive and can be explained. It can be explained or be impeached by parol testimony. When, however, parol testimony tending to impeach such a receipt is so evenly balanced by contradictory evidence of like character as it is in this case, the receipt must control and cannot be set aside. The receipt which the plaintiff signed appeared upon its face to be in full for all services, labor, care, and attention given to Miss Susan C. Forney, and that she, the plaintiff, had no further claim against the said Susan C. Forney or her estate for any services whatsoever. There was no ambiguity in its terms. There is no evidence that there was anything included in the receipt through a mistake, or through fraud or accident. Four of the six witnesses who were present when it was signed, including the plaintiff herself, have testified in the case. Two of them say it was read to her before she signed it, and that she understood what it contained. Another of the four witnesses, a sister of plaintiff, says it was read after it was signed. No objection, however, seems to have been made to it at that time, and its terms are very clear in covering just what the plaintiff is attempting to recover in this action.

"The contention that the claim was not to be paid until after testatrix's death cannot avail, for the reason that the services were rendered and this receipt says it is in full for all services rendered to testatrix to date, and that she, the plaintiff, had no further claim against Susan C. Forney or her estate for any services whatsoever. It is true that the plaintiff says at the time she signed the receipt she asked if this would interfere with any other claim for money she...