Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 Ala. 86

McLendon & Robinson v. Hamblin

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1859

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1859-01-15

Tried before the Hon. Robt. Dougherty. The bill of exceptions in this case is in the following words: “ This was an appeal from a justice’s court, and was tried de novo in the circuit court, on the pleas of non assum/psit and payment. The plaintiffs were introduced as witnesses, under section 2779 of the Code, and swore to the sale and delivery of the goods, as charged in the complaint and shown by their books, and that their said account was just and correct, and unpaid.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1897

4 state decisions

Relies on Jordan v. Owen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

A. J. "WALKER, C. J.

¶1As a general rule, the onus of proof of a payment is upon the defendant who pleads payment, and consequently it does not usually devolve upon the plaintiff to negative the alleged payment by the defendant. ¡Section 2813 of the Code, under the decision in Jordan v. Owen, 27 Ala. 152, establishes an exception to the general rule, so far as to make the negation of payment an element in the establishment by the plaintiff of “the correctness” of his demand by his own oath. The decision of Jordan v. Owen rests upon the peculiar language of the statute, and the unreasonableness and injustice of permitting the plaintiff to establish his demand by his own oath without denying the payment, while the defendant is only permitted to controvert by his oath what the plaintiff has asserted.

¶2The second clause of section 2779 of the Code directs that either party may be a witness on his own behalf, unless the adverse party swears that the testimony proposed to be given is untrue. This clause of the section we understand as embracing cases within a justice’s jurisdiction, “when the matter in controversy, or damages claimed, exceed twenty dollars.” This case falls within that class. The reasoning upon which Jordan v. Owen, supra, is based, has no application here. The language of the statute is different; and both parties have a common right to testify, “ unless the party against whom the testimony is offered, swears that the testimony proposed to be given is untrue.” The exclusion by the plaintiff from his testimony of the subject of payment would not preclude the defendant from testifying to a payment. The statute is essentially different from that construed in Jordan v. Owen, and that decision can have no influence in *88its construction. In cases falling within the second clause of section 2779, the onus of proving payment is upon the defendant; and if his testimony in support of the payment is contradicted by the oath of the plaintiff, asserting that such testimony is untrue, the plea of payment is unsustained, unless other evidence be adduced.

¶3The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded.

/34/ala/86 · .json · Public domain