502 MORETON v. HARRISON.

called on to speak of matters within his own knowledge. But
although this very guarded language of the defendant does look
a little suspicious, yet it must be admitted, since no exception has
been taken to his answer, that he has .said enough to entitle him
to rely upon the presumption of satisfaction.

The witness Lewis Sutton says, that the defendant admitted to
him early in the year 1820, that he had not then paid the whole
amount of the purchase money. This testimony positively con-
tradicts one of the defendant's allegations, and diminishes the
extent of the presumption relied on by him: it is calculated to
shake our faith in his answer. Still, the claim is a stale one; and
there is some scope left on which to rest a presumption of
satisfaction.

The witness Benjamin Carr says, that about February 1825,
" he had a conversation with the defendant Walter Harrison rela-
tive to the agreement between him and Westeneys and Pattison for
the purchase of a tract of land called Hunt's Mount in Ann Aran-
del county: that the defendant commenced the conversation by
informing him that Pattison and Moreton had laid down the land,
and that they were now contending for it; that the first payment
which he, Harrison, had made, was made in tobacco; after which
payment there was a dispute took place between Pattison and
Westeneys, each forbidding him, Harrison, from making any further
payment to the other; and Harrison said he afterwards deposited
the purchase money for said land in the bank." This testimony,
which has not been in the slightest degree impeached, does most
satisfactorily, when taken in connexion with all the circumstances
of this case, repel the presumption, and account for the delay.(n)
Payment was not urged because of the dispute between those who
were to receive; while that controversy continued, the defendant
might have been very unsafe in paying to either of them; and
therefore it was to his advantage to wait until they united in the
demand or made it in this way by a suit, or in such other form so
as he could be assured the payment might be safely made.

Whereupon it is decreed, that the defendant Walter Har-
rison, on or before the 26th of September next, pay or bring
into this court to be paid to the said plaintiffs, Joseph More-
ton, administrator de bonis non of John Westeneys, and to James
I. Pattison, administrator de bonis non of James Pattison, to each

(n) Pow. Mort. 392.