¶1The several assignments of error in this case really raise but one question, and that is the sufficiency of the evidence to justify its submission to the jury. The plaintiff’s judgment was more than twenty years old. The defendant relied on the presumption of payment growing out of the lapse of time. The plaintiff attempted to rebut this presumption by the declarations of the defendant tending to show that it was not paid. This evidence was pertinent. Its persuasive value was for tho jury to determine. We see no error in its admission or in the manner of its submission, and the judgment is affirmed.
176 Pa. 95
Smith v. Shoenberger
Decided May 28, 1896
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1896-05-28
Appeal, No. 128, July T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1892, No. 29, on verdict for plaintiff. Scire facias to revive judgment. Before Bbubajkeb, J. From the record it appeared that on November 28, 1868, a judgment was entered in the'court of common pleas of Lancaster county at the suit of Jungerich & Smith v. Edwin F. Shoenberger in open court for the plaintiff and against the defendant, for want of an appearance for $6,848.57.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1896-05-28
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1975
3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →