Sec 938

A receipt, though written, is open to parol explanation; and the party by whom it was signed may show, as against the other party, that it was made by mistake, or does not exhibit the real state of facts.1 The same rule exists in equity.2 Nor is the rule limited to informal receipts. It applies to bankers' passbooks;3 to certificates of deposit;4 and to receipts of public officers.5 - At common law, it should be remembered, a receipt under seal concludes the party making it, although in equity it may be explained or set aside on ground of mistake or fraud.6 - Parol evidence, also, is admissible to show that a warranty is incidental to an informal written receipt or to a bill of parcels.7 - Whether a receipt for a recent charge leads to the inference of an extinguishment of prior claims depends upon all the circumstances of the case. Such an inference may be drawn prima facie from the mere fact of the receipt of the later charge, but it is open to rebuttal.8 - Possession of the document, also, by which the debt is expressed leads to an inference of payment.9 Payment may also be inferred in cases where an employee, who was in the prior habit of coming regularly for his wages, left his employment without cornplaint of non-payment, and made no suggestion that he had not been fully paid until several years had elapsed.1

Receipt open to explanation by parol.

1 Wh. on EV. sec 1064; Graves V. Key, 3 B. & Ad. 318; Foster V. Daw-ber, 6 Ex. 848; Edwards V. Hancher, L. R. 1 C. P. D. Ill; Good ex parte, L. R. 5 C. D. 46; Richardson V. Beede, 43 Me. 161; Nelson V. Weeks, 111 Mass. 223; Grinnell V. Spink, 128 Mass. 25; Foster V. Newbrough, 58 N. Y. 481; Middlesex V. Thomas, 20 N. J. Eq. 39; Russell V. Church, 65 Penn. St. 9; Walker V. Christian, 21 Grat. 291; Ditch V. Vollhardt, 82 111. 134; Wilson V. Derr, 69 N. C. 137.

2 Lee V. R. R., 6 Ch. 534.

3 Com. Bk. V. Rhine, 3 Macq. Sc. 64.

4 Hotchkiss V. Mosher, 48 N. Y. 478.

5 Lewis V. Webber, 116 Mass. 450.

6 Baker V. Dewey, 1 B. & C. 704. That a receipt of purchase-money in a deed does not estop, but may be disputed between the parties, see Lampon V. Corke, 5 B. & Ald. 606.

7 Benj. on Sales, 3d Am. ed. sec 622; Allen V. Pink, 4 M. & W. 140; Bradford V. Manly, 13 Mass. 137; Stacy V. Kemp, 97 Mass. 168; Foot V. Bentley, 44 N. Y. 166; Perrine V. Cooley, 10 Vroom, 449.

8 Wh. on EV. sec 1362; Colsell V. Budd, 1 Camp. 27; Hodgen V. Wight, 36 Me. 326; Attleborough V. Middle-borough, 10 Pick. 378; Crompton V. Pratt, 105 Mass. 255; Walton V. Eldridge, 1 Allen, 203; Deeker V. Livingston, 15 Johns. 479.

9 Sea Wh. on EV. sec 1362, and authorities there cited.

Sec 939

While receipts may be explained or disputed between the parties, they may estop as to third parties.2 As an illustration of this may be noticed receipts for purchase money which may bind the party receipting as to purchasers without notice, and yet be open to explanation between the parties.3 Between the insured and underwriter, also, a receipt by a broker, acting as agent of the underwriter, may be conclusive, and yet may be open to correction between the broker and the underwriter.4 A receipt by a public officer may be in like manner an estoppel as against vendees with notice.5

Sec 940

When two persons sign a receipt jointly, it is admissible for one of them to show that he acted merely as surety, and that the money was exclusively received by the other party.6 One of several trustees, also, who have signed a joint receipt, may show that the money was received by his fellow trustees, and that he himself signed under circumstances which relieve him from liability.7 And where one of several trustees receipts for a debt due to the trust, his co-trustees may show that the receipt was in fraud of their rights.8

Sec 941

The law with regard to releases is hereafter distinctively discussed. It is enough at this place to say that to enable a release to operate as discharging a claim, it must be either under seal, or must have a sufficient consideration.9

Receipts may estop as to third parties.

One of several joint receivers may show that the money was received by his associates.

Releases must be under seal or must have sufficient consideration.

1 Lucas V. Novosilieski, 1 Esp. 296; Sellen V. Norman, 4 C. & P. 81.

2 Wh. on EV. sec 1006; Wyath V. Hertford, 3 East, 147; Jenkins V. Power, 6 M. & S. 287.

3 Wh. on EV. sec 1066; Bigelow on Est. 3d ed. 473-5; Leake, 2d ed. 905; Kennedy V. Green, 3M.&K. 699; Hunter V. Walters, L. R. 7 Ch. 75; Curtis V. Wakefield, 15 Pick. 437; Graves V. Dudley, 20 N. Y. 76.

4 Jenkins V. Power, 6 M. & S. 287; Power V. Butcher, 10 B. & C. 329.

5 Halsey V. Blood, 29 Penn. St. 319.

6 Straton V. Rasball, 2 T. R. 366.

7 Westley V. Clark, 1 Eden, 357; Brice V. Stokes, 11 Ves. 319.

8 Skaife V. Jackson, 3 B. & C. 421; Farrar V. Hutchinson, 9 A. & E. 641; and see Leake, 2d ed. 902, where the above examples are given.

9 See infra, sec 1031 et seq.