This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-07-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In all, we find that the evidence at hand preponderates in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner's possession of the documents pertaining to the obligation strongly buttresses its claim that the obligation has not been extinguished. The creditor's possession of the evidence of debt is proof that the debt has not been discharged by payment.[27] A promissory note in the hands of the creditor is a proof of indebtedness rather than proof of payment.[28] In an action for replevin by a mortgagee, it is prima facie evidence that the promissory note has not been paid.[29] Likewise, an uncanceled mortgage in the possession of the mortgagee gives rise to the presumption that the mortgage debt is unpaid.[30] | |||||