Court Opinion

ID: 6402133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 00:33:59.455514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:05.069240
License: Public Domain

President.
Although John Probst had not the stills, another might have had and worked them, in 1793-4 . and the duty was then a lien on the stills. To relieve his stills from this liability, Probst might have undertaken to pay the duty. This seems to be the result of a settlement of an account between the parties, when all circumstances may be supposed to have been understood, and a balance struck. The note is prima facie evidence of a demand on Probst. He may controvert it, by shewing fraud, want of consideration, &c.
There was a verdict for the plaintiff.