Case Name: JOHN D. OUTTEN and wife vs. WILLIAM. W. KNOWLES, et al.
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1847
Citations: 4 Harr. 533
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN D. OUTTEN and wife vs. WILLIAM. W. KNOWLES, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 533–534

Head Matter:
JOHN D. OUTTEN and wife vs. WILLIAM. W. KNOWLES, et al.
The receipt and acquittance of an heir at law, or ward, sealed and acknowledged, is conclusive against him, and cannot be corrected in an action against the administrator or guardian.
This was an action of debt on a guardian bond. Pleas, non est factum, payment, &c.
The plaintiffs gave the bond in evidence; the guardian account, showing a balance due the ward, of $62 71; and proved the sum of $48 73, received by the guardian, and not accounted for.
The defendants gave in evidence a receipt under seal, dated June 3, 1845, for $63 65, in full, of M. A. Outten’s share of her father’s estate; acknowledged, and recorded in the register’s office.
Robinson and Saulsbury, for plaintiffs.
Layton, for defendants.
Robinson and Saulsbury,
contended that this receipt was not conclusive, and that the guardian accounts showed that this sum of $48 73, was not accounted for. (1 Esp. Rep. 172; 2 Harr. Rep. 5, 392.)
Layton,
said there was a distinction between an ordinary receipt, and such a receipt as this under seal, acknowledged and recorded under the act of assembly, as an acquittance and discharge.

Opinion:
The Court
were of this opinion, and held that the receipt under seal was not merely prima facie evidence of payment; but was itself a bar, and conclusive. (2 Saund. Pl. & Ev. 749; Gilb. Ev. 142; 1 B. & C. 707; 2 Taunt. 141.)
Whereupon the plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.