Case ID: scl_32/html/0061-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Waudlaw J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

B. T. Wheeler, v. T. H. Alexander.
    The words, “on settlement up to date,” added to a promise to pay for value received, like an acquittance, or receipt on settlement, constitute an acknowledgement that a settlement has been made, and furnish prima- facie evidence that the settlement embraced all matters of account, which, at that date, subsisted between the parties; but this, like any other acknowledgement, may be explained, or contradicted by extrinsic evidence.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Wardlaw, at York, Fall Term, 1846.
    Assumpsit on two papers, whereby the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff certain amounts in “hubs, or lumber,” viz: 1 for $110 12, dated 1st January, 1845, at one day, credited by $3 00, Oct. ’45, and by $59 25, 20th March, ’46: 2d for $45 80, dated 31st January, ’46, at one week, expressed to be “for value received on settlement up to date.”
    These papers having been admitted, the defendant proceeded to establish a discount, which consisted of a demand for work and labor by him done for the plaintiff about his mill, in April, May and June, ’45, amounting as charged, to ⅜166. The plaintiff objected that parol evidence of the discount would contradict the written acknowledgement of settlement, which is contained in the second of the papers above mentioned, and should not be received. The presiding Judge admitted the evidence, holding that the presumption which arose from the acknowledgement made in the paper, and the question .of payment, were proper matters for the consideration of the jury.
    The main point of controversy to be decided, was whether the defendant had worked for the plaintiff or for his own brother. After much testimony had been introduced, his Honor submitted the questions of fact to the jury, directing their attention to the presumptions which arose from the giving of the paper, the expression made in it, and the payment upon the first; but made no decided expression of opinion as to whether they should or should not allow the discount.
    The jury found for the defendant, $5 00, in effect allowing the discount.
    The plaintiff appealed on the ground discussed in the opinion of the Court.
    Clawson, for the plaintiff.
    Williams, contra.
    
   Waudlaw J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The words “on settlement up to date,” added to a promise to pay for value received, like an acquittance or receipt on settlement, constitute an acknowledgement that a settlement has been made, and furnish prima facie evidence that the settlement embraced all matters of account which at the date subsisted between the parties. But this, like any other acknowledgement, may be explained or contradicted. It is certain, because it is in writing, but not therefore conclusive, It is entitled to more weight in the consideration of a jury than a verbal declaration, but stands on the same footing as to the admissibility of opposing evidence. If a full statement of the accounting and settlement which was made had been preserved in writing, and shewed that a particular demand was not included, the acknow-ledgement would not exclude or control this clear evidence to sustain that demand; other evidence of the omission of the demand may be feebler, but still is admissible. In like manner the giving of a note or payment of money by oñe party to the other, raises a presumption that the party promising or paying, has not then any valid demand upon which he might claim that he should receive money instead of paying it. But however strong the presumption, it is but a presumption of fact, which may be rebutted by sufficient evidence. According to these principles, the case was submitted to the jury, and this Court sees no sufficient reason for disturbing the verdict.

The motion is dismissed.