Case ID: serg-rawl_9/html/0057-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TilghmaN, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Chambersburg,
    Oct. 21, 1822.]
    LEHN against LEHN, administrator of LEHN.
    IN ERROR;
    In a suit for money lent; an indorsement oñ a bond given after the loan, by the plain tiff to the defendant, that suit was brought on the bond, is not evidence on behalf of the defendant of that fact.
    But án indorsement on tlie bond of a receipt of a sum equal to the amount loaned, with interest to the time of the receipt, is, evidence to show an extinguishment of-the loan, and unless explained, is conclusive.
    The administration account is not evidence on behalf of the administrator, to'show that there was no debt due from the intestate to the plaintiff
    Error to the Court of Cómmon Pleas of Cumberland county.
    Debt, to recover the sum óf 80 dollars, money lent, brought by Jacob Lehn against John Lehn, administrator of Jonathan Lehn, deceased. After the plaintiff had proved on the trial, the loan of this sum to the intestate, the defendant, under the plea of payment, with leave, offer.ed in evidence a bond from the plaintiff to the intestate, dated the 31st March, 1810, (which was after the loan,) , for the payment of 199 dollars 23 cents, on the 1st April, 1811". It was admitted, that this bond was executed by the plaintiff. The defendant further offered in evidence a receipt for 85 dollars, indorsed on the- bond, and also an indorsement thereon, that suit had been brought on the bond in Franklin county to April term, 1811. The plaintiff objected to this receipt and indorsement, but the court admitted them in evidence, and the defendant excepted.
    The defendant offered in evidence his own administration account on the estate .of Jonathan Lehn, confirmed by the Orphans5 Court of Cumberland county, on the 12th December, 1815, in which the the defendant on the' 1st June, 1811, had only charged himself with the sum of $139 71, on account of the principal and interest then due on the bond above mefitioned given by the plaintiff. This evidence was álso excepted to by the plaintiff, and adr-mitted by the court, who sealed another bill of exceptions. The verdict and judgment were rendered in favour of the plaintiff.
    
      Alexander, for the plaintiff,
    in support of the errors that had been assigned, now contended,
    
      1. That the indorsement, stating that suit had been brought, was no evidence of that fact; it could only be proved by the record. Vanhorn v. Frick.' 3 Serg. and Rawle, 278. 16 Johns. 137.
    2. Thfe administration account of the defendant was not evidence in his own favour.
    
      Ramsey, contra.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

TilghmaN, C. J.

"This is an action brought by Jacob Lehn, against the administrator of Jonathan Lehn, deceased, to recover eighty dollars, lent by the plaintiff to the intestate in his life time.

The plaintiff proved the loan of the money; on which the defendant offered in evidence, a bond from the plaintiff to Jonathan Lehn, (dated, subsequent to the loan,) for the'sum of $199 23, (which was admitted to have been executed by the' plaintiff.) The defendant offered also in evidence a receipt indorsed on the said bond, for the sum of $>85, and another indorsement, by which it appeared that suit had been brought on the bond in Franklin county to August ■term, 1811. To all this evidence the counsel for the plaintiff objected, and on its being admitted, excepted to the court’s opinion. The bond, with the receipt for $>85, was evidence, because they were in affirmance of -the defendant’s plea of payment. The. sum of $85, was about the amount of $>80, (the money lent by the plaintiff to Jonathan Lehn,) with interest from the time of lending. It was highly probable, therefore, that the receipt indorsed on the bond, was intended as an extinguishment of the loan. But this in-dorsement, mentioning that suit had been brought on the bond, was not evidence, because the record was better evidence of the bringing of the suit.

The defendant then offered in evidence, his own administration accotmt on the estate of Jonathan Lehn, in order to show, that he had charged himself with no more than the sum of $139 71, on account of the debt due from the plaintiff on his bond to Jonathan Lehn. This evidence was also excepted to. The evidence would have been in accordance' with the receipt for #85,'indorsed on the bondbecause, if nothing had been paid, there would havé been a larger" sum than $139 71, due on the bond. But it was not legal evidence, because the . exhibition of the administration account was the act of the defendant himself. It amounted to no more than his own assertion, and was not evidence for himself in the present action. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded. At the same time, I cannot heip saying, that the bond, with the receipt indorsed, without any other evidence, seem quite sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s action, unless he could show, that he made an actual payment of the #85 mentioned in the receipt. ’

Judgment reversed and a venire facias de nono awarded.)