In a suit to 'enforce a vendor's lien the acknowledgment of payment contained in the deed is only prima facie evidence of pay ment ; Koch v. Roth, 150 Ill. 212, 37 N. E. 317.
A presumption may rise from the course of dealing between the parties, or the regu lar course of trade; Tayl. Ev. 194. Thus, after two years it was presumed that a work man had been paid, as it was shown that the employer paid his workmen every Satur day night, and this man had been seen wait ing among others; 1 Esp. 296.
A receipt for the last year's or quarter's rent is prima facie evidence of the payment of all the rents previously due ; Brewer v. Knapp, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 332. If the last in stalment on a bond is paid in clue form, it is evidence that the others have been paid; if paid in a different form, that the parties are acting under a new agreement.
Where receipts had been regularly given for the same amount, but for a sum smaller than was due by the agreement, it was held evidence_ of full payment ; Girod v. Mayor, 4 Mart. 0. S. (La.) 698.
Who may make payment. Payment may be made by the primary debtor, and by other persons from whom the creditor has a right to demand it.
An'agent may make payment for his prin cipal. An attorney may discharge the debt against his client; 5 Bingh. 506. One of any number of joint and several obligors, or one of several joint obligors, may discharge the debt ; Viner, Abr. Payment (B). Pay ment may be made by a third person, a stranger to the contract.
It may be stated, generally, that any act done by any person In discharge of the debt, if accepted by the creditor, will operate as payment. In the civil law there are many exceptions to this rule, introduced by the operation of the principle of subrogation. Most of these have no application in the common law, but have been adopted, in some instances, as a part of the law merchant.
See SUBROGATION; CONTRIBUTION.
To whom payment may be made. Pay ment is to be made to the creditor. But it may be made to an authorized agent. And if made in the ordinary course of business, without notice requiring the payment to be made to himself, it is binding upon the prin cipal; 4 B. & Ald. 395 ; Smith v. Cordage Co., 41 La. Ann. 1, 5 South. 413. Payment to a third person by appointment of the principal will be substantially .payment to the princi pal; 1 Phill. Ev. 200. Payment to an agent who made the contract with the payee (without prohibition) is payment to the prin cipal ; Anderson v. Turnpike Co., 16 Johns.
(N. Y.) 86; 10 B. & C. 755. But payment may be made to the principal after authori ty given to an agent to receive ; 6 Maule & b. 156. Payments made to an agent after the death of the principal do not discharge the debtor's obligation, even if made in ig norance of the principal's death; Long v. Thayer, 150 U. S. 520, 14 sup. Ct. 189, 37 L. Ed. 1167. Payment to a broker or factor who sells 'for a .principal not named is good ; 11 East 36. Payment to an agent, when he is known to be such, will be good, if made upon the terms authorized ; 11 East 36 ; if there be no notice not to pay to him; 3 B. & P. 485; and even after notice, if the factor had a lien on the money when paid; 5 B. & Aid. 27. If the broker sells goods as his own, payment is good though the mode varies from that agreed on ; 1 Maule & S. 147; 2 C. & P. 49. Bankers are not agents of the owner to receive payment of the notes by reason simply of the fact that the notes were made payable at their bank ; and moneys left with them to be used as payment are not thereby the moneys of the owner of the notes ; Cheney v. Libby, 134 U. S. 68, 10 Sup. Ct. 498, 83 L. Ed. 818.
Payment to an attorney is as effectual as payment to the principal himself ; Duquette v. Richar, 102 Mich. 483, 60 N. W. 974. So, also, to a solicitor in chancery after a de cree ; 2 Ch. Cas. 38. The attorney of record may •give a receipt and discharge the judg ment; Lewis v. Gamage, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 347; Kellogg v. Gilbert, 10 Johns. (N. Y.)• 220, 6 Am. Dec. 335 ; Richardson v. Talbot, 2 Bibb 382; if made within one year ; Gray v. Wass,' 1 Greenl. (Me.) 257. Not so of an agent appointed by the attorney to col lect the debt ; 2 Dougl.. 623. Payment by an officer to an attorney whose power has been revoked before the officer received the exe cution did not discharge the officer; Parker v. Downing, 13 Mass. 465. Payment to one of two co-partners discharges the debt ; ard v. Ward, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 542; Yandes v. Lefavour, 2 Blackf. (Ind,) 371; 6 Maule & S. 156; even after dissolution ; 4 C. & P. 108, So payment to one of two joint credi tors is good, though they are not partners; Morrow's Heirs v. Starke's Adm'r, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 367. But payment by a banker to one ,of several joint depositors without the assent of the others was held a void pay ment ; 4 E. L. & E. 342.