Court Opinion

ID: 6547726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:21:00.840997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:56:00.966503
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING. McCulloch, C. J. The introduction of the receipt, in regular form, properly signed and countersigned by those authorized to do so, raised a presumption of payment with the terms of the receipt, and cast upon appellant the burden of overcoming this presumption by affirmative proof of nonpayment. Appellee introduced no other proof of payment, and perhaps had none, as the person shown by the face of the receipt to have made the payment was then dead, and the receipt was executed nearly three years prior to his death. She rested merely on the presumption of payment raised by the receipt. This presumption reached to every available mode of payment, and in order to overcome it the burden was on appellant to close up by affirmative proof every avenue through which payment could have been made. Appellant’s witnesses attempt to show that the receipt was executed and delivered by mistake. They do not pretend to know or to state from personal recollection that the premium could not have been paid to some other authorized agent of the company. Those who testified could not have known that payment was not made to some other agent. They merely attempted to show that they did not receive payment, and that the receipt was executed and delivered through mistake. The explanation given of the alleged mistake is that the record of another policy was “on a line of the book immediately next to the record of the policy in controversy, and the mistake was made in losing the proper line when running it out for any payments, and thereby a payment on another policy was mistaken for the third annual payment on the policy sued on.” The witness who so testified did not make the error himself, but he says it was made by another employee. That other employee does not give any explanation of it, but merely says that he is the one who made the error referred to, and that no payment was ever made. Neither explain why the error was never detected and an effort made to recall the receipt. It would appear to be quite unusual for a receipt to be executed and mailed out without some entry being made on the cash book or other book evidencing the daily receipt or remittances. It is a matter of common knowledge that in fairly well regulated business institutions of’any considerable magnitude an accurate system of bookkeeping is practiced whereby there is a corresponding debit entered for each credit, and vice versa. The accounts should balance at all times, and a discrepancy will necessarily discover itself to a competent bookkeeper or accountant. It need not be assumed that appellant, in the operation of its business, practiced the usual accurate -methods of keeping accounts, but the suggestion of such a glaring mistake and the failure to detect it for so long a time calls for some explanation. The fact that for nearly three years after the delivery of this receipt the alleged mistake was not detected, or, if detected, that no effort was made to recall the receipt — the fact that nothing was said about the alleged mistake until after the death of the policy holder, is significant and raises some doubt about the correctness of the statement of the witnesses. To use the language of this court in a case quite similar to this, “it presents an unusual, if not unreasonable story,” and makes a question of fact for the jury to determine whether or not it should be credited. Industrial Mut. Indemnity Co. v. Perkins, 81 Ark. 87. The decisions of this court in Southern Express Co. v. Hill, 84 Ark. 368, and Industrial Mut. Indemnity Co. v. Perkins, 87 Ark. 70, where the testimony of witnesses was found to be uncontradicted, reasonable and consistent, should not, we think, be held to control the decision in the present case, when we conclude that the testimony given by the witnesses in contradiction of the receipt is not reasonable and consistent, or at least when we can see that the jury could have regarded it as unreasonable. It is true -that these witnesses were not examined, but an admission as to what they would testify was read to the jury in order to obviate postponement of the trial. They might, if examined and cross-examined, have given a more reasonable explanation of the transaction. We must, however, assume that the statements of their testimony, prepared by counsel for appellant, contained all that the witnesses would say on examination. A careful re-examination of the evidence introduced com vinces a majority of the court that it presented a disputed' issue of fact, which was properly submitted to the jury. A rehearing is therefore granted, and the judgment is affirmed. Battue and Hart, JJ., dissent.