At Common Law, independently of statute, a presumption arose after twenty years from the time that a right of action upon a debt accrued that such debt had been paid.1 In Tennessee sixteen years is taken as the time after which a presumption of payment would arise,2 and in some other states statutes have been passed shortening the time after which such presumption arises.3 A statute shortening the time within which a presumption of payment arises does not apply to preexisting liabilities, such as judgments4 which were due and owing when the statute was passed. This rule applies to the so-called contracts of record, such as judgments;5 to specialties ;6 and to simple contracts, such as notes.7 No presumption of payment arises from mere lapse of time in case of a decree declaring a vendor's lien on certain realty and ordering a sale thereof, but not rendering a personal judgment.8 No presumption arises in a period less than that fixed by Common Law or statute as the period after which such presumption arises,9 even if only a day less.10 However, lapse of time less than the requisite period may be considered as a material fact in determining whether as a fact payment has or has not been made.11 The time after which this presumption arises begins to run only at the maturity of the debt. If the contract provides that payment for services rendered should be made when the party for whom they were rendered wished no further rendition, no presumption arises that such services were paid for before their termination, though they extended over a long period of time.12 Time during which a suit is pending to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance made by the judgment debtor should not be counted in determining whether judgments recovered by the creditors who brought such suit are presumed to have been paid.13 The presumption arises in a particular case only when the debtor denies the debt. A third person, claiming title to realty adversely to a mortgagor and his mortgagee, cannot, in an action in ejectment brought by the mortgagee, invoke lapse of time between the execution of such mortgage and its foreclosure to show that the mortgage debt has been paid.14 This presumption is prima facie only and may be rebutted.15 Insolvency of the debtor may be shown to rebut the presumption of payment,10 but to do so in solvency must be shown to have lasted during the entire period,17 and actual insolvency as distinguished from lack of affluence is necessary to produce this result.18 The facts that the debtor has been nearly insolvent and that the note evidencing the debt, and the collateral security out of which the creditor is seeking to enforce the debt are both in the hands of the creditor, have been held sufficient to rebut such presumption.19 An acknowledgment of the debt within twenty years preceding the action, if made by the debtor, rebuts such presumption."0 Thus a deed, made by the trustee of a trust deed by way of mortgage, after the maturity of the deed, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of payment.21 Unlike the rule which applies to acknowledgments which prevent the application of the statutes of limitation, such acknowledgment need not recognize the debt as a valid and subsisting obligation, and need not expressly nor impliedly contain a promise to pay. It is sufficient if it shows that the debt in question has never been paid.22 An admission of non-payment coupled with a refusal Wheat to pay is sufficient to rebut the presumption of payment.23 Such an acknowledgment is sufficient if made to a third person and not to the creditor, on the theory of an admission contrary to interest.2* Part payment by a debtor within twenty years before action is begun rebuts such presumption.25 Unlike part payment which prevents limitations from running,26 part payment to rebut such presumption may be made by one of several joint debtors.27 Evidence which would have prevented limitations from running* is sufficient to rebut the presumption of payment. Thus absence of the debtor from the state28 rebuts such presumption. The passage of the statute of limitations has not deprived the rule of presumption of payment of all force and effect in law.29 The presumption of payment may operate where for some cause,30 such as absence of the defendant from the state,31 limitations has not run. In some jurisdictions, however, the passage of the statute of limitations has been held to reduce the period after which this presumption arises from the Common-Law period of twenty to the period of limitations fixed by statute.32 Such presumption applies in an action by the state,33 contrary to the rule applicable to the statute of limitations.

9 Allen v. Smith, 129 U. S. 465; Ward v. Waterman, 85 Cal. 488; 24 Pae. 930; Brookville National Bank v. Kimble, 76 Ind. 203; Ord-way v. Cowles, 45 Kan. 447; 25 Pac. 862; Anderson v. McNeal, - Miss. - ; 34 So. 1; Plummer v. Rohman. 61 Neb. 61; 84 N. W. 600; Dayton Spice Mills Co. v. Sloan. 49 Neb. 622; 68 N. W. 1040; Shep-pard's Estate, 180 Pa. St. 57; 36 Atl. 422; Stanford v. Andrews, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 664; Columbia, etc., Trust Co. v. Strawn, 93 Tex. 48; 53 S. W. 342; Welton v. Boggs. 45 W. Va. 620; 72 Am. St. Rep. 833; 32 S. E. 232; Baltimore, etc., R. R. v. Vanderwerker, 44 W. Va. 229; 28 S. E. 829.

10 Sanger v. Nightingale, 122 U. S. 176; Gault v. Trust Co., 100 Ky. 578; 38 S. W. 1065. Contra, Lent v. Shear, 26 Cal. 361.

11 Anderson v. McNeal. - Miss. -; 34 So. 1.

12 Welton v. Boggs, 45 W. Va. 620; 72 Am. St. Pep. 833; 32 S. E. 232.

13 Allen v. Smith, 129 U. S. 465.

14 Corbey v. Rogers, 152 Ind. 169; 52 N. E. 748. (Even if in the petition he is alleged to have or claim some interest in the realty.)

15 Callaway's Administrator v. Saunders, 99 Va. 350; 38 S. E. 182.

16 Sawyer v. Sawyer, 74 Me. 579; Oates v. Lilly, 84 N. C. 643.

1 Hillary v. Waller, 12 Ves. Jr. 239; Oswald v. Legk, 1 T. R. 270; Gaines v. Miller, 111 U. S. 395; Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 489; Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245; 24 Am. St. Rep. 894; 6 So. 46; 9 So. 265; Locke v. Caldwell, 91 111. 417; Courtney v. Standenmeyer, 56 Kan. 392; 54 Am. St. Rep. 592; 43 Pac. 758; Anderson v. Smith, 3 Met. (Ky.) 491; Denny v. Eddy, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 533; Barker v. Jones, 62 N. H. 497; 13 Am. St. Rep. 686; Bean v. Tonnele, 94 N. Y. 381; 46 Am. Rep. 153; Allen v. Everly, 24 O. S. 97; Beekman v. Hamlin, 19 Or. 383; 20 Am. St. Rep. 827; 10 L. R. A. 454; 24 Pac. 195; Hummel v. Lilly, 188 Pa. St. 463; 68 Am. St. Rep. 879; 41 Atl. 613; Gwyn v. Porter, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 253; Doyle's Administrator v. Beas-ley, 99 Va. 428; 39 S. E. 152; Seymour v. Alkire, 47 W. Va. 302; 34 S. E. 953.

2 Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dunscomb, 108 Tenn. 724; 91 Am. St. Rep. 769; 58 L. R. A. 694; 69 S. W. 345; McDaniel v. Goodall. 2 Coldw. (Tenn.) 391; Gwyn v. Porter, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 253.

3 St. Francis Mill Co. v. Sugg, 169 Mo. 130; 69 S. W. 359; Fisher v. New York, 67 N. Y. 73; Wingett's Appeal, 122 Pa. St. 486; 15 Atl. 863.

4 Wencker v. Thompson's Administrator, 96 Mo. App. 59; 69 S. W. 743.

5 Gaines v. Miller, 111 U. S. 395; Gage v. Downey, 79 Cal. 140; 21 Pac. 527, 855; Maxwell v. De Valin-ger, 2 Penne. (Del.) 504; 47 Atl. 381; Beekman v. Hamlin, 19 Or. 383; 20 Am. St. Rep. 827; 10 L. R. A. 454; 24 Pac. 195; Hummel v. Lilly, 188 Pa. St. 463; 68 Am. St. Rep. 879; 41 Atl. 613; Smith v. Schoenberger, 176 Pa. St. 95; 34 Atl. 954; Latimer v. Trowbridge. 52 S. C. 193; 68 Am. St. Rep. 893; 29 S. E. 634.

6 Gaines v. Miller, 111 U. S. 395; Williams v. Mitchell, 112 Mo. 300; 20 S. W. 647; Devereux's Estate, 184 Pa. St. 429; 39 Atl. 225; Dickson v. Gourdin, 26 S. C. 391; 2 S. E. 303; Doyle's Administrator v. Beasley, 99 Va. 428; 39 S. E. 152.

7 Courtney v. Staudenmayer, 56 Kan. 392; 54 Am. St. Rep. 592; 43 Pac. 758; Owens v. Owens (Ky.)

52 S. W. 943; Barker v. Jones, 62 N. H. 497; 13 Am. St. Rep. 586; Walls v. Walls, 170 Pa. St. 48; 32 Atl. 649.

8 Moore v. Williams, 129 Ala. 329; 29 So. 795.

9 Swatts v. Bowen, 141 Ind. 322; 40 N. E. 1057; Ludwig v. Black-shere, 102 la. 366; 71 N. W. 356; Stockton v. Johnson, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 408; Fletcher v. Fletcher's Estate, 72 Vt. 268; 47 Atl. 777.

10 Calwell v. Prindle, 19 W. Va. 604.

11 Manning v. Meredith, 69 Ta. 430: 29 N. W. 336; Moore v. Pogue,

1 Duv. (Ky.) 327; Walls v. Walls, 170 Pa. St. 48; 32 Atl. 649.

12 Ryans v. Hospes, 167 Mo. 342, 67 S. W. 285.

13 St. Francis Mill Co. v. Sugg, 169 Mo. 130; 69 S. W. 359.

14 Glezen v. Haskins, 23 R. I. 601; 51 Atl. 219.

15 In re Dixon (1899), 2 Ch. 561; Brobst v. Brock, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 519; Semple v. Glenn. 91 Ala. 245; 24 Am. St. Rep. 894; 6 So. 46; 9 So. 265; Courtney v. Staudenmayer, 56 Kan. 392; 54 Am. St. Rep. 502; 43 Pac. 758; Herndon v. Bartlett. 7 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 440; Fuller v.

Cushman, 170 Mass. 2S6; 49 X. E. 631; Barker v. Jones, 62 N. H. 497; 13 Am. St. Rep. 586; Maeaulay v. Palmer, 125 X. Y. 742; 26 N. E. 912; Alston v. Hawkins, 105 N. C. 3; 18 Am. St. Rep. 874: 11 S. E. 164; Allen v. Everly, 24 O. S. 97; Smith's Estate, 177 Pa. St. 437; 35 Atl. 680; Latimer v. Trowbridge, 52 S. C. 193; 68 Am. St. Rep. 893; 29 S. E. 634; Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dunscomb, 108 Tc nn. 724; 91 Am. St. Rep. 769; 5S L. R. A. 694; 69 S. W. 345: Lyon v. Guild, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 175; Jameson v. Rixey, 94 Va. 342; 64 Am. St. Rep. 726; 26 S. E. 801.

16 Boardman v. De Forest. 5 Conn. 1; Wanamaker v. Van Buskirk. 1 N. J. Eq. 685; 23 Am. Dec. 74S; Devereux's Estate. 184 Pa. St. 429; 39 Atl. 225; Connecticut Mutual

Life Ins. Co. v. Dunscomb, 108 Tenn. 724; 91 Am. St. Rep. 769; 58 L. R. A. 694; 69 S. W. 345.

17 Farmers' Bank v. Leonard, 4 Har. (Del.) 536; Alston v. Hawkins, 105 X. C. 3; 18 Am. St. Rep. 874; 11 S. E. 164.

18 Rogers v. Judd, 5 Vt. 236; 26 Am. Dec. 301.

19 Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dunscomb, 108 Tenn. 724; 91 Am. St. Rep. 769; 58 L. R. A. 694; 69 S. W. 345.

20 Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 4S9; Cartwright v. Kerman, 105 N. C. 1: 10 S. E. 870; White v. White, 200 Pa. St. 565; 50 Atl. 157; Smith v. Schoenberger, 176 Pa. St. 95; 34 Atl. 954.

21 Lewis v. Schwenn. 93 Mo. 26; 3 Am. St. Rep. 511; 2 S. W. 391.

22 Hughes v. Edwards, 9

(U. S.) 489; Bissell v. Jaudon, 16 O. S. 498; Breneman's Appeal, 121 Pa. St. 641; 15 Atl. 650.

23 Gregory v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. St. 611; 6 Am. St. Rep. 804; 15 Atl. 452.

24 Cape Girardeau County v. Harbison, 58 Mo. 90; Runner's Appeal, 121 Pa. St. 649; 15 Atl. 650.

25 In re Dixon (1899), 2 Ch. 561; Denny v. Eddy, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 533; White v. Beaman, 96 N. C. 122; 1 S. E. 789; Bissell v. Jaudon, 16 0. S. 498.

26 See Sec. 1692.

27 Denny v. Eddy, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 533; Dickson v. Gourdin. 29 S. C. 343; 1 L. R. A. 628: 7 S. E. 510.

28 Latimer v. Trowbridge, 52 S. C,

193; 68 Am. St. Rep. 893; 29 S. E. 634. Apparently contra, Courtney v. Staudenmayer, 56 Kan. 392; 54 Am. St. Rep. 592; 43 Pac. 758.

29 Booker v. Booker, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 605; 26 Am. Rep. 401.

30 Wright v. Mars, 22 S. C. 585; Hale v. Pack, 10 W. Va. 145.

31 Courtney y. Staudenmayer, 56 Kan. 392; 54 Am. St. Rep. 502; 43 Pac. 758.

32 Atkinson v. Dance, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 424; 30 Am. Dec. 422; Walker v. Emerson. 20 Tex. 706; 73 Am. Dec. 207.

33 In re Ash's Estate. 202 Pa. St. 422; 90 Am. St. Rep. 658; 51 Atl 1030.