When money is sent by letter, even though the money is lost, it is good pay ment and the debtor is discharged, if he was expressly authorized or directed by the creditor so to send it, or if such authority can be presumed from the' course of trade; Benj. Sales 727 ; 11 M. & W. 233 ; and in the case of an insurance premium, such premium is held to be paid when the letter containing it is deposited in the postoffice, addressed to the company ; McCluskey v. Nat. L. Ass'n, 77 Hun 556, 28 N. Y. Supp. 931. But, even if the authority be given or inferred, at least ordinary diligence must be used by the debtor to have the money safe ly conveyed. See Wakefield v. Lithgow, S Mass. 249 ; Ry. & M. 149 ; 1 Exch. 477.
The payment must have been accepted knowingly. Many instances are given in the older writers to illustrate acceptance ; thus if the money is counted out, and the payee takes a part and puts it in a bag, this is a good payment, and if any be lost it is the payee's loss ; 5 Mod. 398. Where A paid B £100 in redemption of a mortgage, and B bade C put it in his closet, and C did so, and A demanded his papers, which B refused to deliver, and A demanded back his money, and B directed C to give it to him, and C did, it was held to be a payment of the mortgage; Viner, Abr. Payment (E).
When interest coupons on railroad bonds have been presented and paid at the usual place of payment, with money furnished by a third party, a private arrangement between such third party and the mortgagor that the transaction shall constitute a purchase of the coupons and not payment, will not be en forted against the bondholders; Fidelity Ins. T. & S. D. Co. v. R. Co., 138 Pa. 494, 21 Atl. 21, 21 Am. St. Rep. 911. One who lends money to a company to take up its coupons, is not entitled to be paid out of funds in the hands of the receiver ; Newport & C. B. Co. v. Douglass, 12 Bush (Ky.) 673.
Generally, there can be but little doubt as to acceptance or non-acceptance, and the question is one of fact for the jury to deter mine under the circumstances of each par ticular case.
Evidence of payment. Evidence that any thing has been done and accepted as pay ment is evidence of payment.
A receipt is prima fade evidence of pay ment; but a receipt acknowledging the pay ment of ten. dollars and acquitting and re leasing from all obligations would be a re ceipt for ten dollars only ; 5 B. & Ald. 696 ; Rich v. Lord, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 325. And a receipt is only prima facie evidence of pay ment ; 2 Taunt. 241; Southwick v. Hayden, 7
Cow. (N. Y.) 334; Salazar v. Taylor, 18 Colo. 538, 33 Pac. 369. For cases explaining this rule, see, also, Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 27, 6 Am. Dec. 150; Johnson v. Weed, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 310; Agnew v. McGill, 96 Ala. 496, 11 South. 537. And it may be shown that the particular sum stated in the receipt was not paid, and, also, that no payment has been made; 2 Term 366 ; Fuller v. Critten den, 9 Conn. 401, 23 Am. Dec. 364; Dutton v. Tilden, 13 Pa. 46. As against strangers thereto, a receipt is incompetent evidence of the payment thereby acknowledged ; Ellison v. Albright, 41 Neb. 93, 59 N. W. 703, 29 L. R. A. 737. See RECEIPT.
Payment may be presumed by the jury in the absence of direct evidence; thus, posses sion by the debtor of a security after the day of payment, which security is usually 'given up upon payment of the debt, is prima facie evidence of payment by the debtor ; 1 Stark. 374;. Weidner v. Schweigart, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 385 ; Smith v. Gardner, 36 Neb. 741, 55 N. W. 245.
If an acceptor produce a bill of exchange, this is said to afford in England no presump tion of payment unless it is shown to have been in circulation after he accepted it ; 2 Campb. 439. But in the United States such possession is prima facie evidence of pay ment ; Patton's Adm'rs v. Ash, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 116 ; People v. Johns. (N. Y.) 296; Dennie v. Hart, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 204. Payment is conclusively presumed from lapse of time. After twenty years' non-demand, unexplained, the court will presume a pay ment without the aid of a jury ; 1 Campb.
27; Williams v. Mitchell, 112 Mo. 300, 20 S W. 647; In re Smith's Estate, 152 Pa. 102 25 Atl. 315 ; Idler v. Borgmeyer, 65 Fed. 910 13 C. C. A. 198. Facts which destroy the reason of this rule may rebut the presume don ; Knight v. McKinney, 84 Me. 107, 24 Atl 744; Beekman v. Hamlin, 23 Or. 313, 31 Pac 707. See Matter of Looram, 73 Hun 177, 25 N. Y. Supp. 877. And a jury may infer pay went from a shorter lapse of time, especially if there be attendant circumstances favoring the presumption ; Lesley v. Nones, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 410. The statute of limitations does not apply to an action by a legatee to col lect a legacy which is a charge on land, and no presumption of payment arises from the lapse of twenty years; Williams v. Williams, 82 Wis. 393, 52 N. W. 429. Where an indebt edness is shown, it is presumed to remain unpaid until the contrary is shovAi ; Diel v. Stegner, 56 Mo. App. 535.