Summary
The court held that depositing a letter in the post office addressed to a merchant at the merchant’s place of business is prima facie evidence that the letter was received in the ordinary course of mail. This inference is rebuttable and must be weighed by the jury with other evidence, with the burden of proving receipt remaining on the party asserting it.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether mailing a letter addressed to a merchant at his place of business constitutes prima facie evidence that the merchant received it in the ordinary course of the mails.
- Whether the mailing-based inference is a conclusive presumption of law or a rebuttable inference of fact for the jury.
- Whether the jury instructions correctly placed the burden of proving receipt on the party asserting receipt.
Holdings
- Depositing a letter in the post office addressed to a merchant at his place of business is prima facie evidence that the merchant received it in the ordinary course of the mails.
- The inference arising from mailing is not a conclusive presumption of law but a rebuttable inference of fact that must be weighed by the jury with all other circumstances.
- The burden of proving receipt remains throughout on the party who asserts that the letter was received.
Key quotations
“The depositing of a letter in the post-office, addressed to a merchant at his place of business, is primé facie evidence that he received it in the ordinary course of the mails” (105 Mass. at 391)
“The presumption so arising is not a conclusive presumption of law, but a mere inference of fact” (105 Mass. at 392)
“the burden of proving its receipt remains throughout upon the party who asserts it.” (105 Mass. at 392)
Factual background
The plaintiff sought payment for velocipedes that had been contracted for, including some that were still being manufactured. The defendant did not call for the velocipedes and claimed he had not received notice that they were completed. The plaintiff testified that he mailed a notice letter to the defendant, a merchant, at Boston, but the defendant testified that he never received it.
Procedural history
The case was tried in the Superior Court before Scudder, J. The jury was instructed that mailing a letter addressed to the defendant at his place of business was prima facie evidence that the letter reached its destination, subject to rebuttal, while also being instructed that mailing alone was insufficient unless the jury found that the defendant received the letter. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions. The Supreme Judicial Court overruled the exceptions.