Pennsylvania Company v. Youngman
Decision Date | 19 March 1934 |
Docket Number | 169 |
Parties | Pennsylvania Company, Executor, Appellant, v. Youngman et al |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 30, 1934
Appeal, No. 169, Jan. T., 1934, by plaintiff, from decree of C.P. Delaware Co.-1910, No. 394, in case of The Pennsylvania Company for Insurances on Lives & Granting Annuities executor, v. Margaret Heebner Youngman, defendant, and Delaware County Trust Co., garnishee. Judgment reversed and new trial awarded.
Attachment sur judgment. Before HENDERSON, J., specially presiding.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict directed in favor of garnishee and judgment entered thereon. Plaintiff, executor of Thomas J. Meagher, deceased, appealed.
Error assigned, inter alia, was judgment, quoting record.
Judgment reversed and new trial awarded.
John E. McDonough, with him Joseph E. Pappano and R. Paul Lessy, for appellant. -- Where a party has a debt against another evidenced by a specialty or a record, and to which no statute of limitations applies, the burden of proving it unpaid is not thrown upon him who claims it, even in a suit brought more than twenty years after it becomes payable, if within twenty years a fair effort, though an unsuccessful one, has been made to recover it by suing out legal process for that purpose: James v. Jarrett, 17 Pa. 370; Miller's Est., 243 Pa. 328; Croskey v. Croskey, 306 Pa. 423; Gilmore v. Alexander, 268 Pa. 415.
Evidence of inability to pay is sufficient to rebut the presumption of payment. See Gilmore v. Alexander, 268 Pa. 415; Coleman v. Trust Co., 255 Pa. 63, which are very much like the case in point.
The presumption does not arise while the debtor lives outside the State upon the theory that no action could be taken against them in this State to recover the judgment: Coleman v. Trust Co., 255 Pa. 63.
There is no limitation to the lien of an attachment execution against the interest of a defendant in the real estate of a decedent: Neely v. Grantham, 58 Pa. 433.
J. H. Ward Hinkson, for appellee. -- After the elapse of twenty years a judgment is presumed to have been paid: Peter's App., 106 Pa. 340; Hummel v. Lilly, 188 Pa. 463.
The legal presumption arising from lapse of time is alone sufficient to defeat a recovery, if no promise to pay or no payment on account has been made within twenty years: Hummel v. Lilly, 188 Pa. 463; Ott v. Ott, 311 Pa. 130.
The burden of removing the presumption of payment is on the plaintiff: Hummel v. Lilly, 188 Pa. 463; Sheafer v. Woodside, 257 Pa. 276; Lefever's Estate, 278 Pa. 196.
The evidence must be clear, convincing and satisfactory, to justify a conclusion that the debt in question was not in fact paid: Fidelity Title and Trust Co. v. Chapman, 226 Pa. 312; Camp v. John, 259 Pa. 38, 41.
Whether the facts relied upon to rebut a presumption of payment are true is for the jury; but whether, if true, they are sufficient is for the court: Peter's Appeal, 106 Pa. 340; Camp v. John, 259 Pa. 38.
Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.
The parties to this appeal are the executor of a judgment creditor of the defendant, Mrs. Youngman, and a garnishee, which, at the time of the trial, had money payable to the defendant under a will. [1] The learned court below directed a verdict for the garnishee on the ground that plaintiff had not rebutted the presumption of payment, or shown that it was not applicable to the judgment. Appellant, on the other hand, contends that it was entitled to binding instructions, or, in any event, that the evidence should have been submitted to the jury.
The judgment was entered on a single bill September 17, 1910. On the same day attachment-execution issued, and was served on the garnishee. It was returned nihil habet as to defendant. March 26, 1913, interrogatories were filed and served; they were answered April 11, 1913. [2]
The garnishee was trustee under the will of Mrs. Youngman's grandfather, D. Reese Esrey; her interest in his estate was contingent: she took nothing unless she survived her father. He died December 25, 1930. The trustee filed its account in September, 1931. At the adjudication, a sum was set aside to abide the suit. Promptly thereafter, the garnishee was notified that the case would be put down for trial. October 3, 1931, the garnishee pleaded nulla bona and presumption of payment. The case was reached for trial May 10, 1932.
No testimony was offered on behalf of the garnishee, or on behalf of the defendant. During the period involved, she was a nonresident of this state; although she had notice that the attachment was being pressed, she did not appear at the trial. The learned trial judge, in his opinion, filed under Rule 58, thus summarized evidence offered to prove nonpayment:
A vice-president of the garnishee testified that, when served, he "presumed" that he notified defendant's counsel of the service; in May, 1931, he wrote to defendant: She subsequently called on him and "employed counsel, who conferred with the attorney for the estate." She did not "say whether or not she had paid" this judgment; part of her distributive share of the trust fund was set aside to abide this suit after "we took it up between our attorney and her attorney"; "she of course knew it was withheld." On July 1, 1931, the vice-president advised her: On September 1, 1931, he wrote: On November 16, 1931, he sent her a check on account, stating that an award had been made to her "less $4,000, to be retained to answer attachment."
Appellant contends that it appears by the prosecution of the claim, as disclosed by the record and the evidence, that the presumption does not arise; that the circumstances in evidence account for the delay. See Foulk v. Brown, 2 Watts 209, 214; Reed v. Reed, 46 Pa. 239, 242; Coleman v. Erie Trust Co., 255 Pa. 63, 65, 99 A. 217. When the attachment execution issued, defendant's contingent interest could not be seized: Patterson v. Caldwell, 124 Pa. 455, 17 A. 18; but, from the time it vested, it became subject to the attachment, like any other property afterward coming into the hands of the garnishee prior to the trial: Frazier v. Berg, 306 Pa. 317, 325, 159 A. 541. Defendant did not plead to the writ, or move to dissolve for laches in prosecution, irregularity, or for any other reason. It, therefore, remained alive as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Levan's Estate
... ... Cemetery Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of the ... State of Pennsylvania, take or receive in the real estate of ... Daniel J. Levan, deceased, designated as the Levan ... ...