2 Ind. 224 | Ind. | 1850
This was an action of debt brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff, in October, 1845, upon a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Warren county, Ohio, rendered in March, 1823.
Pleas — payment and nul tiel record. There was a trial upon the issues raised by these pleas, which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff.
By a bill of exceptions it appears that the plaintiff offered in evidence a certified copy of the record of the judgment upon which the suit was brought, and some oral testimony relative to admissions of the defendant below that the said judgment had not been paid or satisfied. The defendant objected “ severally and separately to every portion of said evidence so offered and introduced by the plaintiff,” but as the grounds of the objection are not stated, the ruling of the Court below on those points cannot now be assigned for error.
The defence principally relied on by the plaintiff in error appears to be, that the suit, not having been commenced within twenty years after the rendition of the judgment, is barred by the statute of limitations, and that the acknowledgments proved are not sufficient to take the case out of the statute.
The statute law of this state upon that subject is contained in the 5th article, c. 40, R. S. It commences with 101st section, which enacts that certain actions shall
With regard to what is meant by a presumption of payment, there cannot be any difficulty. The Courts, long since, and in the absence of any statute on the subject, adopted the same rule with regard to bonds and other specialties, namely, that a presumption'of payment was raised by the lapse of twenty years, and the effect of such presumption was, that the defendant might rely upon it as prima facie proof of payment. Oswald v. Leigh, 1 Durn. & E. 270. — Dunlop v. Ball, 2 Cranch, 180. It is not conclusive proof, but may be submitted, and when
In the present case we think there was sufficient evidence to warrant the finding that the judgment, which forms the foundation of the suit, was not paid, and, as the action is not barred by the statute of limitations, the judgment of the Circuit Court in the premises must be affirmed.
The judgment is affirmed with costs, &c.