Holly v. . Freeman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Holly v. . Freeman

24 N.C. 218

DecidedJune 5, 1842

StatusPublished

This text of 24 N.C. 218 (Holly v. . Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holly v. . Freeman, 24 N.C. 218 (N.C. 1842).

Pincite

Opinion

Daniel, J.

The statute declares that the presumption of payment shall arise in ten years after the right of action shall have accrued, under the same rules as theretofore existed at law in such cases. Rev. Stat. c. 65, s. 13. The Legislature has. therefore said, that forbearance for so long a time as ten years, unexplained, is a circumstance, from which the jury ought to infer that the debt has been satisfied. However, the presumption arising after such a lapse of time may be repelled by the defendant’s admission of the debt, or payment of interest within ten years; or the presumption may be answered by the proof of other circumstances, explaining satisfactorily why an earlier demand has not been made. More than fourteen years after this bond was due, the obli-gor was spoken to about it, when she said that she believed she had paid it. It seems to us that this evidence, so far from repelling the presumption of payment, which time had raised in her favor, rather went to strengthen that presumption. We think the judge was right in saying that it was no evidence to go to the jury to repel the presumption of payment, which the statute had raised.

Per CuRiam, Judgment below affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Daniel, J.

The statute declares that the presumption of payment shall arise in ten years after the right of action shall have accrued, under the same rules as theretofore existed at law in such cases. Rev. Stat. c. 65, s. 13. The Legislature has. therefore said, that forbearance for so long a time as ten years, unexplained, is a circumstance, from which the jury ought to infer that the debt has been satisfied. However, the presumption arising after such a lapse of time may be repelled by the defendant’s admission of the debt, or payment of interest within ten years; or the presumption may be answered by the proof of other circumstances, explaining satisfactorily why an earlier demand has not been made. More than fourteen years after this bond was due, the obli-gor was spoken to about it, when she said that she believed she had paid it. It seems to us that this evidence, so far from repelling the presumption of payment, which time had raised in her favor, rather went to strengthen that presumption. We think the judge was right in saying that it was no evidence to go to the jury to repel the presumption of payment, which the statute had raised.

Per CuRiam, Judgment below affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 N.C. 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holly-v-freeman-nc-1842.