Case Name: In re WAITE
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-09-20
Citations: 60 N.Y.S. 488
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re WAITE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 60
Pages: 488–492

Head Matter:
(43 App. Div. 296.)
In re WAITE.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Fourth Department.
September 20, 1899.)
Payment—Receipt—Burden.
Where the debtor produces a receipt, duly executed by the creditor, for a sum less than the debt in full therefor, the burden is on those contesting its sufficiency to show that the debt had not been reduced to the sum stated in the receipt to avoid the presumption of payment arising on the production of the receipt.
Appeal from surrogate’s court, Jefferson county.
judicial accounting of Willis A. Waite as executor of the will of Irena M. Waite, deceased. There was a decree confirming the report of the referee, and the executor appeals.
Reversed.
Franklin Waite died March 8, 1875, leaving, him surviving, his widow, Irena M. Waite, and four sons, Willis A., the appellant, and John R., Austin H., Edward J., and one daughter, Amelia A. Sutton (now Wardwell). Franklin left a will and considerable real estate and personal property, and in his will gave the residuum of his estate to his widow, Irena M. Waite, and named her and one Richard Huntington executrix and executor of the will. The will was probated. Huntington did not qualify. Irena M. assumed possession of the personal property, with the aid of her son, Willis, the appellant, he volunteering to aid his mother in the management of the affairs of her late husband’s estate. Willis resided the next door to his mother, and had the general management of the estate of the father, and the property of his mother, from the death of the father down to the 16th of January, 1893, when the mother died, leaving her last will and testament, which has been admitted to probate by the surrogate of Jefferson county, of which the appellant was the executor. No formal judicial settlement of the estate of Franklin Waite was ever made. An inventory of his assets was prepared by William Grennell, from which it appeared his personal assets amounted to the sum of $14,497.01. There was" a money legacy given to his daughter, Mrs. Sutton, of $2,300. The other notes and securities were treated as belonging to his widow. In 1877, Edward J. asked the appellant for a memorandum of what belonged to their mother of the personal ass.ets, and a statement was made by the appellant showing assets amounting, apparently, to the sum of $18,686.77. In the, schedule of assets delivered by the appellant in 1877 was the note of F. Waite & Son for $9,281.77. Upon the hearing before the referee a receipt was produced in evidence, executed by Mrs. Irena M. Waite, and is Exhibit No. 26, and reads as follows:
“Received, Adams, March 28th, 1877, of Willis A. Waite, surviving partner of the late firm of F. Waite & Son, six thousand three hundred and sixty-three and 88/ioo dollars, in full for all notes and demands held by me as executrix of the estate of Franklin Waite, deceased.
' “Irena Waite, Executrix.
“Witness: E. J. Waite.”
The referee only credited the sum of $6,363.63 on account of the F. Waite & Son note, and refused to find that the receipt discharged the appellant from the full amount of the note, and charged the appellant in the account with the sum of $3,226.37 as a balance unpaid and due on the note after the date of that receipt, and interest thereon. The finding in that respect is excepted to by the appellant.
Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and ADAMS, McLENNAN, SPRING, and NASH, JJ.
John Lansing, for appellant.
Watson M. Rogers, for respondent.

Opinion:
HARDIN, P. J.
On the 28th of June, 1897, the referee's report was presented to the surrogate's court of Jefferson county, and the contestants applied for an order confirming the same, and the executor opposed such confirmation, and also moved to set the report aside. On that occasion exceptions to the referee's report were filed to his decision and findings, and various requests to the surrogate to find were made, which he declined to receive and pass upon, although he subsequently granted an order confirming the referee's report. The referee found there was a balance in the hands of the appellant of $6,910.52 to be paid by the executor under the terms of the will, less the costs and expenses of the accounting, which he advised should be allowed to both parties out of the fund. The referee accompanied his report with an opinion. Before the referee the contestants claimed that the executor should account for the F. Waite & Son note of $8,438.16 in full. The appellant claimed he should not be held for any part of it. The receipt which has been referred to in the statement of facts was produced upon the trial, and its execution duly proved by the appellant, and the evidence indicates that it was . signed by Mrs. Waite, and witnessed by her son Edward. The referee did not give full force and effect to the receipt. It may be said that the evidence does not very clearly indicate what Mrs. Waite did with the $6,-363.63 which was paid to her according to the tenor of the receipt. In order to give imlidity to the receipt, it was not necessary that the evidence should indicate what disposition she made of the money. The referee has charged the appellant with the difference between $6,363.63 and the amount which was due upon the note, and has, therefore, charged the appellant with the sum of $3,226.37. We think the burden was upon the contestants to show that the note had not been reduced to the sum mentioned in the receipt in order to avoid the legal presumption which arises from the production of the receipt. Boughton v. Flint, 74 N. Y. 476.
The receipt purports to be in full of all sums of money that were then due upon the note, and in Patterson v. Ackerson, 2 Edw. Ch. 427, it was said: "Where a party claims against the face of such receipt, it is for him to prove his prior demands, and it is not obligatory upon the holder of the receipt to show previous payment independent of the receipt." In Danziger v. Hoyt, 120 N. Y. 190-195, 24 N. E. 295, it was said: "It must be assumed that no greater sum than that paid and receipted was conceded to be due." We think the evidence does not satisfactorily indicate that the item of $3,226.37 was chargeable to the appellant, and that the finding of the referee in that regard is not satisfactorily supported by the evidence.
Several other items are made the subject of criticism in behalf of the appellant. We are inclined to think that the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusions reached by the referee in respect to them. For the error in allowing the item of $3,226.37, we think the decree should be reversed, and the proceedings remitted to the surrogate's court for further determination.
Decree of the surrogate's court reversed, with costs to the appellant, payable out of the fund, and the proceedings remitted to the surrogate's court for further determination. All concur.