Court Opinion

ID: 9808533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:40:59.137193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:40.144390
License: Public Domain

*390Douglas, J.,
concurring: There is one part of the opinion of the Court which I think is liable to misconstruction. It' is as follows: “The defendant insisted that it was necessary to prove actual payments for which the credits were endorsed, and that the endorsements themselves were not evidence of payment. That is, would be the rule only in eases where the dates of the endorsed credits themselves show-' that they were made after the Statute of Limitations had become a complete bar.” I fear this might be construed into' meaning that the mere endorsement, if made before the' statute had become a complete bar, would in itself create a presumption of payment. To this I could not assent. If, however, the Court means, as I am told it does, that such an endorsement would not of itself raise any presumption of a corresponding payment, but would simply be some evidence to go to the jury tending to prove payment, I agree with the opinion.
My views may be briefly stated as follows: Section 152 of The Code provides that an action upon a sealed instrument against the principal thereto' must be brought in ten years. Section 172 is as follows: “No acknowledgment or promise shall be received as evidence of a new or continuing contract, whereby to take the case out of the operation of this title, unless the same be contained in some writing signed by the party to be charged thereby; but this section shall not alter the effect of any payment of principal or interest.” It will be seen that the statute uses the word payment, and therefore a mere endorsement of a payment not signed “by the party to be charged thereby,” can never amount to anything more' than mere evidence of .payment. Our decisions hold that if' such' endorsement is made after the note or bond is barred by the statute, it is of itself not even evidence of payment; and that if made before such bar, it is evidence of such payment simply because it is supposed to have been entered by the *391creditor or bis agent, as he holds the paper, and it is therefore a declaration against his own interest, inasmuch as it tends to lessen the amount due on the note.
But if, on the contrary, it turns out, as in the case at bar, that such an endorsement is the only thing that brings the note within the statute, then such an endorsement is not against the interest of the holder, but becomes his o.wn declaration in his own favor. Cessat ratione cessat ipsa lex.
As it is the fact of payment itself, and not the mere endorsement that prevents the bar of the statute, the burden of proving payment in such cases always rests upon the holder of the paper. This comes within the general rule that where the Statute of Limitations is pleaded, the burden rests upon the plaintiff of bringing his claim within the statute, as otherwise he has no cause of action.
Furches, C. J. I concur in the concurring opinion.