This was an action of debt, brought in 1844, upon a bond for §668, due 3d June, 1826, purporting to be executed by Noah Ward, William J. Ward, Elijah Ward and Henry JJoub., Pleas: Non est factum, and the Statute of 1826, raising a presumption of payment upon, bonds after ten years from tbe day of payment.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1874
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
ft was an action of debt on a bond. The-defendant pleaded,
non est faetum,
payment and set off,, accord and satisfaction, release,
solvit ad diem,
and
solvit post diem,,
the Act of 1826-7, presuming payment, &c.
To
rebut the presumption of payment, the plaintiff offered in evidence a judgment recovered in his name upon this bond against N-oah Ward, the principal obligor, but
upon
which there had been a partial payment only, made in the year 1840. The action against Ward was commenced in 1831. This testimony was rejected by the presiding Judge, and under his instructions the jury found a verdict for the defendant.
¶2
In the ease presented to us, it appears that the j.ury found all the issues in favor of the defendant,, and
of
*169
«course passed upon their plea of
ñon est factum.
That finding puts an end to the case, for the jury have said it was not the deed of the .defendant. It is unnecessary to express any opinion, as to the correctness of the presiding judge in ruling out the testimony offered by the plaintiff. Ws are precluded from so doing, by several adjudications of this Court,
Morrisey
v.
Bunting,
1 Dev. 6.
Bulloch
v.
Bulloch,
3 Dev. 260.
Martin
v.
Waugh, 2
Dev. and Bat. 518.
