
    
      Robert Dobbin vs. Zadock Perry.
    
    A receipt is conclusive evidence of payment, unless it be explained, or mistake or fraud be proved.
    
      Before Butler, J. at Lancaster, Spring Term, 1844.
    This was an action of assumpsit for money had and received, and for goods sold and delivered. The defendant, in January 1841, sold cotton for the plaintiff in Camden, and received the proceeds, about three hundred dollars. He used about six hundred feet of lumber, and cut down some trees on plaintiff’s land, by his permission, to build some cabbins.
    
      The defendant produced a receipt in full from the plaintiff, written on the bill containing the account sales of the cotton. The receipt was subsequent'to any of the demands <of the plaintiff, and was as follows. “17th April,-1841, Received of Zadock Perry, in full of the within cotton bill, and all other demands up to this date, above stated.
    his
    Robert M Dobbin.”
    Test, A. D. Hilliard. mark
    The plaintiff owed money in the sheriff’s office, part -of which was paid by the defendant on the day the receipt was given. How the defendant paid the balance of the plaintiff’s demand, did not appear. The parties had various dealings which were not explained-.
    His Honor reported that there was nothing to satisfy him that the receipt to the defendant was unfair ; and he almost toolr it for granted that the jury would find a verdict for the defendant. They, however, took a different view of the subject, and found a verdict for the plaintiff for eighty four dollars.
    The defendant appealed, and now moved for a new trial, on the ground,
    That the receipt was a complete bar to the action, as there was no evidence that it was obtained by fraud, or given by mistake.
    Clinton, for the motion.
    
      Wright, eontra.
   Curia, per

Richardson, J.

A receipt is the acknow-ledgement of the fact of payment, or of a settlement between debtor and creditor; but, unlike a'written contract, it may be explained, or mistakes proved, without fraud being first proved. Hog vs. Brown, 2 Brev. R. 223 ; Tobey vs. Barber, 5 Johns. Rep. 72. Yet still it is the written affirmation of the creditor, and, therefore, .prima facie, good evidence against his demand, to the extent of his receipt. It follows, plainly, that the present receipt being in full of the cotton bill, “and all other demands,” must be taken by the jury according to its expression' and purport, until tire contrary be made to appear by good testimony. Such testimony must be either intrinsic to the demand apparently released by the receipt; for instance, as in Hog's case, where wool hats being delivered instead of fur hats, the vendee recovered the difference between the value of such hats, notwithstanding his receipt in full; or else the evidence must be extrinsic, and by shewing some demand prior to, but not within the knowledge or consideration of the parties when the receipt in full was given — but nothing of the kind appears from the evidence adduced. A new trial is, therefore, ordered.

O’Neall, Evans, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.  