
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1807.
    Hogg v. Brown.
    A receipt- in full of all demands is not conclusive evidence, if not given under a knowledge of an existing demand. As where defendant sold the plaintiff wool hats for fur hats, and took a receipt in full of all demands. It was adjudged the plaintiff was not precluded, by the receipt, from shewing that he was imposed upon, and from recovering the amount of his demand, allowing a reasonable price for the hats received.
    Action on the case for deceit, before Bay, J., in Lexington district. The defendant pleaded, that he paid the plaintiff seventy dollars, which he received in full satisfaction, and produced in evidence, the plaintiff’s receipt, in the following words : “ Received, 13th June, 1806, of Mr. Charles Brown, seventy dollars, in full of all accounts and demands, excepting the building of a house for said Brown, whereon there is thirty-three dol'ars and one third due me.” Signed, “ John Hogg,” The damages claimed by the plain, tiff, was, for imposing on him hats made of wool, as and for fur hats. It appeared, at the trial, that the fraud, or deception, although it had been practised on the plaintiff prior to the date of the receipt, was not discovered by him until afterwards.
    On this ground the presiding judge charged the jury in favor of the plaintiff, and they found a verdict accordingly.
    Hooker, for the defendant,
    moved for a new trial, and insisted, that the receipt was a release of all demands which existed antecedent to the date of the receipt. Cited 6 Wood’s Conveyancing, title, “ Demands and Claims and that it was improper to admit evidence to contradict, or impair the force of the release. The release was given long before the deceit, and the defendant must have had it in contemplation.
    Starke contra.
    
    It was proved that the fraud was practised, and that the deception was not detected until after the receipt was given, although it was long afterwards; and, therefore, on the ground of mistake, the plaintiff cannot claim the benefit of it, to bar a demand which was not then in the contemplation of the plaintiff; although there might not have been any fraud in obtaining the receipt.
   Waties, J.,

declared the opinion of the whole court, except TuitzEVANT, J., .absent, sick. It .appears the demand in question was not known by the plaintiff to exist at the time the receipt was given, and, therefore, could not have been in the view, or consideration of the plaintiff, at that time. It does not appear that he ought to have known it at the time, for it is founded on the fraud of the plaintiff, which might not have been discovered when the . ” . .. , , , , , receipt was given. Even if it had appeared that there was a mistake in the settlement of accounts, and the defendant could prove how it happened, his receipt in full of all demands, would not preclude him for doing so.

Note. A receipt in full, is conclusive evidence, when given under a knowledge of all circumstances then depending between the parties; aliter, when given without such knowledge. 1 Espin Eep. 172. Bristow, ci at. v. Eastman. A receipt is not conclusive evidence against the party signing it; for he may shew he did not receive the sum, or thing, in question. 2 I). and E 366. This agrees with the doctrine of the civil and French law. See Pothier on Obligations, part 1, n. 98, page 63, 1 vol.

New trial refused.  