RECEIPT. A written acknowledgment of payment of money or delivery of chattels.
It is executed by the person to whom the delivery or payment is made, and may be us ed as evidence against him, on the general principle which allows the admission or dec laration of a party to be given in evidence against himself. As an instrument of evi dence, the receipt of one person is, in gener al, inoperative against another, although of ten useful as a voucher in the private set tlement of accounts ; and the statutes of some states make receipts for small pay ments made by executors, etc., evidence of the payment on a settlement of their ac counts. And receipts of public officers are sometimes admissible per se; State Bank v. Kain, 1 Breese (111.) 75. It is essential to a receipt that it acknowledge the payment or delivery referred to ; Russ. & R. 227 ; 7 C. & P. 549. And under the stamp laws a dal/very or payment must be stated; 1 Camp. 499. Also the receipt must, from the nature of the case, be in writing, and must be deliv ered to the debtor ; for a memorandum of payment made by the creditor in his own books is no receipt ; 2 B. & Ald. 501, n.; Hunter v. Campbell, 1 Spears (S. C.) 53. See Nelson v. Boland, 37 Mo. 432.
A debtor is not bound to pay unless the creditor is ready and willing to give a re ceipt ; 9 S. C. 248 (So. Africa).
Receipts, effect of. The mere acknowledg ment of payment made is not treated in law as binding or conclusive in any high degree. So far as a simple acknowledgment of pay ment or delivery is concerned, it is presump tive evidence only; Rollins v. Dyer, 16 Me. 475 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 11 Mass. 363 ; 1 Perr. & D. 437; Robinett v. Wilson, Gill (Md.) 179; Salazar v. Taylor, 18 Colo. 538, 33 Pac. 369; Danziger v. Hoyt, 46 Hun (N. Y.) 270 ; Harris v. Hay, 111 Pa. 562, 4 Atl. 715 ; and'is, in gen eral, open to explanation ; House v. Low, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 378 ; Hogan & Co. v. Reynolds, 8 Ala. 59; Thomas v. Austin, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 265 ; St. Louis, Ft. S. & W. R. Co. v. Davis, 35 Kan. 464, 11 Pac. 421; Davison v. Davis; 125 U. S. 90, 8 Sup. Ct. 825, 31 L. Ed. 635; being an exception to rthe general rule that parol evidence cannot be admitted) to contra dict or vary a written instrument; Tobey v.
Barber, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 68, 4 Am. Dec. 326; Brooks v. White, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 283, 37 Am. Dec. 95. Thus, a party may always show, in explanation of a receipt limited to such ac knowledgment, the actual circumstances un der which it was made ; Putnam v. Lewis, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 389; e. g., that it was obtained by fraud ; Trisler v. Williamson, 4 H. & Mal. (Md.) 219, 1 Am. Dec. 396 ; or given under a mistake ; Egleston v. Knickerbacker, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 458; Whittemore v. Stout's Adm'r, 3 Dana (Ky.) 427 ; or that, in point of fact, no money was actually paid as stat ed in it ; Davis v. Allen, 3 N. Y. 168 ; Beach v. Packard, 10 Vt. 96, 33 Am. Dec. 185 ; State v. Cuminiskey, 34 Mo. App. 189 ; Ditch v. Vollhardt, 82 I11. 134 ; but see Hillyer v. Vaughan, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 583 ; or that the medium of remittance on which the re ceipt was based has failed ; Nat. L. Ins. Co. v. Goble, 51 Neb. 5, 70 N. W. 503 ; or where it is given by a contractor under an assur ance that it is only a receipt for moneys then paid, and would not preclude him from making a claim for extra work ; White v. Ellisburgh, 18 App. Div. 514, 45 N. Y. Supp. 1122. A receipt in full for part of an un disputed claim does not prevent recovery of the balance, though given with knowledge and there was no error or fraud ; Jones v. Rice, 19 Misc. 357, 43 N. Y. Supp. 491. A receipt is an admission only ; Greenl. Ey. 1, 212 ; 3 B. & Ad. 318 ; State v. Branch, 112 Mo. 661, 20 S. W. 693; it is but prima facie evidence against the creditor ; Whiting v. L. Assur. Soc., 60 Fed. 197, 8 C. C. A. 558, 13 U. S. App. 597; and may be explain ed, unless executed with the formalities of a deed ; Leake, Contr. 901; in law as well as equity ; L. R. 6 Ch. 534. As against a stran ger thereto, it Is incompetent evidence of the payment thereby acknowledged ; Ellison v. Albright, 41 Neb. 93, 59 N. W. 703, 29 L. R. A. 737. Mere negligence in signing a receipt without reading it will not conclude the sign er or preclude explanation of its contents, particularly if the signing were induced by fraud ; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Lovelace, 57 Kan. 195, 45 Pac. 590.