Court Opinion

ID: 8000591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 01:48:56.685997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:35:42.492401
License: Public Domain

Scott, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action against Barret as endorser of a negotiable note; plea, payment.
We have nothing to do with the question whether the evidence was or was not sufficient to establish the fact of payment. The instructions asked by the defendant and refused by the court, of which complaint is made, were properly refused, inasmuch as they required the court to declare that to be a presumption of law, which was only a presumption of fact to be raised or not as the jury would determine from the circumstances in evidence. There are presumptions of law and presumptions of fact. The former are of a nature to exclude all contrary proof, and which the court will not suffer the jury to disregard; whilst the latter are founded in experience, and may be raised or not as the jury may determine, and for a disregard of which the court grants or refuses a new trial as upon the evidence in all other cases of trial by jury. Where a presumption is one of fact merely, the court is not warranted in declaring it to the jury as a presumption authoritatively raised by law, but should direct them that from the evidence it is their province to determine whether they will raise the presumption or not. The jury, *390looking to the bench for the law, would naturally take it that such a declaration was binding and left them no discretion. Where the facts are before the jury, the presumptions or inferences they warrant are questions purely for them. (Best on Presumptions, 46, 51.) Where presumptions of fact founded in experience and in the usual course of the dealings of men are not repelled by contrary evidence, they should be respected by juries, and they have no power arbitrarily to reject them. They must stand until they are overthrown by contrary proof. Presumptions of payment, arising against claims for debts alleged to remain unpaid while subsequent demands due on the same account and arising from the same cause are proved or admitted to have been regularly discharged, are presumptions of fact liable to be repelled by proof to the contrary, and to be found to have application to a case by a jury, subject to the power in the court of granting a new trial. (Matthews on Presumption, 398-9.)
The other judges concurring, judgment affirmed.