551-Welling v. La Bau, 34 Fed. 43-Tomkinson v. Willetts Mfg. Co. 34 Fed. 537Creamer v. Bowers, 35 Fed. 208-Fischer v. Hayes, 39 Fed. 613-Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 43 Fed. 675-Royer v. Shultz Belting Co. 45 Fed. 53-Untermeyer v. Freund, 50 Fed. 78-Mosher v. Joyce, 2 C. C. A. 326, 6 U. S. App. 107, 51 Fed. 445-Untermeyer v. Freund, 7 C. C. A. 190, 20 U. S. App. 32, 58 Fed. 211-Avery v. Meikle, 85 Ky. 450, 7 Am. St. Rep. 604, 3 S. W. 609 -Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Davis, 68 Md. 291, 6 Am. St. Rep. 440, 11 Atl. 822 -Buckley v. New Bedford, 155 Mass. 67, 29 N. E. 201-New York Bank Note Co. v. Hamilton Bank Note Engraving & Printing Co. 180 N. Y. 296, 73 N. E. 48-Dobson v. Dornan, 43 Phila. Leg. Int. 229-Bostock v. Goodrich, 18 Phila. 534, 42 Phila. Leg. Int. 491. 786. In an action for infringement of a patent, where there is in the evidence no 744, 782. The plaintiff in an action for in- basis for a computation of the damages, only fringement of a patent must show his dama-nominal damages can be given. Cornely v. ges by evidence. They must not be left to Marckwald, 131 U. S. 159, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. conjecture by the jury. Philp v. Nock, 17 33: 117 Wall. 460, 21: 679 Robertson v. Blake (Blake v. Robertson) infringement of a patent has the burden of 787. The plaintiff in a suit in equity for 94 U. S. 728, proving that defendant has made profits. Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 894, 24: 245 New York v. Ransom, 23 How. 487, 16: 515 S. 445, 29 L. ed. 179, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945- Stamping Co. 32 Fed. 551-Campbell v. New 783. The burden of proof as to damages for infringement of a patent rests upon the complainant; and if he fails to give the necessary evidence, but resorts instead to inference, conjecture, and speculation, he must fail for want of proof. Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co. 114 U. S. 439, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945, 29: 177 Cited in Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 151, 31 L. ed. 669, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 894-Hunt Bros. Fruit Packing Co. v. Cassidy, 3 C. C. A. 530, 7 U. S. App. 424, 53 Fed. 261-Lattimore v. Hardsocg Mfg. Co. 58 C. C. A. 288, 121 Fed. 988-Kansas City Hay Press Co. v. Devol, 127 Fed. 366. 784. The burden of proof as to damages for infringement of a patent rests upon the complainant. There is no presumption of damages more than nominal. Robertson v. Blake (Blake v. Robertson) 94 U. S. 728, 24: 245 785. On proof of infringement of a patent, without proving the amount of damages or profits, only nominal damages can be allowed. Robertson v. Blake (Blake v. Robertson) 94 U. S. 728, 24: 245 Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co. 114 U. S. 439, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945, 29: 177 Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U. S. 10, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 946, 30: 63 Cited in Warren v. Keep, 155 U. S. 268, 39 L. ed. 145, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 83-Bostock v. 31: 664 788. In a suit in equity for the infringement of a patent, in order to recover profits the patentee must show what advantage the use of the patented improvement has over other known methods, in common use, of producing the same result. Black v. Thorne, 111 U. S. 122, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326, 28: 372 Cited in Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co. 114 U. S. 445. 29 L. ed. 179, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 149, 31 L. ed. 668, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 894- -Reed v. Lawrence, 29 Fed. 918-Roemer v. Simon, 31 Fed. 42-Everest v. Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. 31 Fed. 744-Shannon v. Bruner, 33 Fed. 873Creamer v. Bowers, 35 Fed. 208-Fischer v. Hayes, 39 Fed. 613-Webster Loom v. Hig. gins, 43 Fed. 676-Mosher v. Joyce, 45 Fed. 206-Boston v. Allen, 33 C. C. A. 491, 50 U. S. App. 447. 91 Fed. 253-Hazelton v. M'Groarty, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 292-Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co. 42 Phila. Leg. Int. 205. 789. A decision that an infringer is chargeable with profits only to the extent that he derived some special advantage from the use of patented improvement, and that as no rule of such recovery, such as alicense fee, was shown, or proof that the patented improvement was the source of a substantial profit, nor any testimony given from which a definite estimate of the amount of such profits could be formed, the complainant should be adjudged nominal damages and no more,—was affirmed by a divided Shannon v. Bruner, court. Copyright. See also infra, 2615-2617. 37: 930 790. In the absence of evidence to the con Goodrich, 25 Fed. 819-Tuttle v. Gaylord, 28 trary, it will be presumed that the deposit Fed. 97-Reed v. Lawrence, 29 Fed. 918Filley v. Littlefield Stove Co. 30 Fed. 447Roemer v. Simon, 31 Fed. 42-Everest v. Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. 31 Fed. 744Bell v. United States Stamping Co. 32 Fed. of the title of a copyrighted work was made before publication, and also that, where the work purports to have been deposited within three months after the date of the deposit value of the lands, a breach of trust by the 797. In the absence of any proof of the United States in selling Indian lands at private sale for the statutory price of public lands, instead of at public sale, does not show any damage. United States v. Blackfeather, 155 U. S. 180, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 64, of the title, it was deposited within three | might be inferred, but an actual settlement months after publication. It will be equally based upon such an understanding. Swift presumed, in the absence of evidence to the & C. & B. Co. v. United States, 111 U. S. contrary, that the deposit of the work, 22, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244, 28: 341 though made on the same day with the deposit of the title, was not made prior to publication. Although it is to be presumed that the title was deposited before publication, yet, where the work was deposited five months and five days after the deposit of title, it cannot be presumed that such deposit of the work was made within three months after the publication. Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177, 32: 547 791. Where three things are prescribed by the copyright statute to be done in consecutive order, and all three appear to have been done on the same day, it will be presumed that the statute was complied with, leaving the prima facie evidence open to be rebutted. Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 9 Sup; Ct. Rep. 177, 32: 547 Cited in Bernheimer v. Adams, 70 App. Div. 122, 75 N. Y. Supp. 93. 6. Miscellaneous. 39: 114 798. The presumption is that the cutting of wood on unsurveyed government land is that it was cut for the purposes and under illegal, and affirmative evidence showing lawful under the acts of Congress is necesthe circumstances which make the cutting sary on the part of a person claiming a for negligently setting fire to such wood. right to recover from a railroad company Northern P. R. Co. v. Lewis, 162 U. S. 366, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 831, 40: 1002 Cited in Stubbs v. United States, 44 C. C. A. 295, 104 Fed. 991-United States v. Gumm Bros. 9 N. M. 621, 58 Pac. 398. 799. The presumption of duty performed Whether Wharves and Piers are Nuisances, omnia rite applies to the procuring of nec see Trial, 199. See also Duties, 117. 792. Where it appears that a warrantor under La. Civ. Code had a good defense to an action brought against the warrantee, who failed to call in the warrantor to defend, and subsequently brought an action on the warranty for re-embursement of the amount of the judgment in the former action, the presumption is that the defense would have been proved and availed of, in the former suit, by the warrantor, if he had been called in warranty, or had been notified of the bringing of the suit. Flanders v. Seelye, 105 U. S. 718, 26: 1217 793. Where a judgment was confessed for a sum claimed as the true balance of accounts, subject to the right of the debtor to reduce the amount, the burden of proof to show error in the amount is upon him. Gear v. Parish, 5 How. 168, 12: 100 essary consent to enter Indian lands for the to recover such taxes as, upon an investiga- 27: 724 17: 29 420. an easement by prescription is claimed was 795. Trial by jury is a fundamental guaranty of the rights and liberties of the people; consequently, every reasonable pre-8 sumption should be indulged against its waiver. Hodges v. Easton, 106 U. S. 408, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 307, 27: 169 796. It is incumbent on the government, in order to deprive a dealer in proprietary articles of his commissions arising out of the purchase of stamps made from his own dies, not only to show facts from which an agreement to waive his statutory right Condition of things. See also Shipping, 386. 802. Where a bill of lading acknowledging the receipt of goods in good order says "contents unknown," it is limited to the external appearance, and the burden of proving good condition is on the shipper. Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272, 13: 985 803. The signing of a bill of lading acknowledging receipt of the goods in question in good order is prima facie evidence that, as to all circumstances which were visible, the goods were in good order. But it does not preclude the carrier from showing, in case of loss or damage, that the loss proceeded from some cause which was not apparent when he received the goods. Nelson v. Woodruff, 1 Black, 156, 17: 97 Cited in The Queen of the Pacific, 75 Fed. 77The Titania, 124 Fed. 976-Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. v. Hall, 32 Ark. 670-Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Jones, 1 Ind. Terr. 360, 37 S. W. 208-Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me. 301, 35 Am. Rep. 327-Dean v. Driggs, 137 N. Y. 284, 19 L.R.A. 308, 33 Am. St. Rep. 721, 33 N. E. 326-Hale v. Milwaukee Dock Co. 23 Wis. 280, 99 Am. Dec. 169-Hale v. Milwaukee Dock Co. 29 Wis. 492, 9 Am. Rep. 603. Recovery of duties paid. 804. The burden of proof that the exaction of duties was unlawful is upon the importer who sues to recover them back. Erhardt v. Schroeder, 155 U. S. 124, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 45, 39: 94 Cited in United States v. Ranlett, 172 U. S. 146, 43 L. ed. 398, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114. 805. In an action to recover duties illegally exacted, the plaintiff must show the illegality complained of. Arthur v. Unkart, 24: 768 96 U. S. 118, 806. An importer who brings a suit to recover back duties as excessive has the burden of proving that the interpretation which he contends for, of a term in the statute, is the true one as used among commercial men. Earnshaw v. Cadwalader, 145 U. S. 36: 693 247, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 851, Cited in United States v. Ranlett, 172 U. S. 146, 43 L. ed. 398, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114-United States v. Wetherell, 13 C. C. A. 267, 21 U. S. App. 618, 65 Fed. 990. 807. The importer has the burden of showing that goods dutiable under one provision of a tariff act, according to the ordinary understanding thereof, are in fact within another provision, according to the commercial nomenclature. Swan v. Arthur, 103 U. S. 597, 26: 525 808. Under Rev. Stat. §§ 2931 and 3011, the importer must show, in order to recover duties alleged to have been illegally exacted, that he has fully complied with the statutory conditions which attach to the stat utory action provided for, as to protest, appeal, and decision on the appeal, and suit within ninety days after decision, or the lapse of ninety days after appeal, without any decision. Arnson v. Murphy, 115 U. S. 579, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 185, 29: 491 Distinguished in Moller v. Merritt, 29 Fed. 683. Cited in Kings County Sav. Inst. v. Blair, 116 U. S. 206, 29 L. ed. 659, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353-Porter v. Beard, 124 U. S. 433, 31 L. ed. 491, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 554-Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U. S. 325, 34 L. ed. 679, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 103-Hager v. Swayne, 149 U. S. 244, 37 L. ed. 720, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 841Saltonstall v. Russell, 152 U. S. 633, 38 L. ed. 578, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 733-Schoenfeld v. Hendricks, 152 U. S. 693, 38 L. ed. 602, 810a. The law presumes the debt of the executor to be satisfied when assets come to his hands to the amount of it, there being no other debts of higher degree; but the presumption may be rebutted by proof of application of the money to other debts. Page Cited in Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Pet. 522, 9 L. v. Lloyd, 5 Pet. 304, 8: 134 ed. 216-Sealey v. Thomas, 6 Fla. 30-Mitchell v. Rice, 6 J. J. Marsh. 626-Harrison. v. Henderson, 7 Heisk. 332-Smith v. Watkins, 8 Humph. 341-Stinchcomb v. Marsh, 15 Gratt. 211-Garrett v. Ramsey, 26 W. Va. 373. 811. One is not entitled, by force of act of Congress of March 3, 1877, making appro priations for mail service performed in the Confederate states to judgment, upon proof of services rendered by him, without also showing that his claim was not paid by the Confederate government; the burden is not on the United States to show such payment. Selma, R. & D. R. Co. v. United States, 139 U. S. 560, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638, 35: 266 812. Where the contract between an insurance agent and the company is that his commissions should accrue only as the premiums are paid to the company, in order to recover commissions from the company. he must prove, not only that the premiums were due, but that they were actually paid to the company. Manning v. John Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co. 100 U. S. 693, 25: 761 813. A communistic society will be presumed so to have discharged its obligation to deceased members who contributed no property to the society, but in consideration of support dedicated their labor and services, as to leave no undischarged obligations or rights for distant relatives of such deceased members to assert or claim against the Schwartz V. community or its property. Duss, 187 U. S. 8, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 4. 47:53 814. In an action by a creditor of a corporation to compel stockholders to pay the amounts unpaid on their subscriptions to stock, where the assessments or calls on the minutes of the corporation do not show that the stock was fully paid for, it devolves on defendants to show what, if any, further payments were made. Camden v. Stuart, 144 U. S. 104, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585, 36: 363 Cited in Salt Lake Hardware Co. v. Tintic Mill. Co. 13 Utah, 429, 45 Pac. 200. Presumption from lapse of time. Rebuttal of Presumption, see infra, Sufficiency of Rebutting Evidence, see Lapse of Time as Bar to Recovery, see See also Judgment, 1092; Limitation of 815. Presumptive evidence of the payment Cited in Harvey v. United State, 97 Fed. 456. 817. A presumption of payment may arise after a lapse of twenty years. Higginson v. Mein, 4 Cranch, 415, 2: 664 Cited in Bailey v. Jackson, 16 Johns. 214— Roberts v. Welch, 43 N. C. (8 Ired. Eq.) 292-Hazard v. Martin, 2 Vt. 87. -Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland, Ch. 264Cheever v. Perley, 11 Allen, 588-Carson v. Cochran, 52 Minn. 75, 53 N. W. 1130Jefferson College v. Dickson, Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 482-Nevitt v. Bacon, 32 Miss. 213, 66 Am. Dec. 609-Cape Girardeau County use of Road & Canal Fund v. Harbison, 58 Mo. 96-Tripe v. Marcy, 39 N. H. 449-Boughton v. Harder, 46 App. Div. 355, 61 N. Y. Supp. 574-Calkins v. Calkins, 3 Barb. 307-Murdock v. Robinson, 71 Hun, 322, 25 N. Y. Supp. 120-Fowler v. Wood, 78 Hun, 306, 28 N. Y. Supp. 976-Mack v. Anderson, 165N. Y. 532, 59 N. E. 289-Roberts v. Welch, 43 N. C. (8 Ired. Eq.) 292-Woodlief v. Wester, 136 N. C. 166, 48 S. E. 578-Clark v. Potter, 32 Ohio St. 61-Brock v. Savage, 31 Pa. 421-Johnston v. Lasker Real Estate Asso. 2 Tex. Civ. App. 499, 21 S. W. 961Kendall v. Tracy, 64 Vt. 526, 24 Atl. 1118 -Snavely v. Pickle, 29 Gratt. 39-Troll v. Carter, 15 W. Va. 583. 818a. By the common law, the lapse of twenty years, without explanatory circumstances, affords a presumption of law that the debt is paid, even although it be due by specialty. Gaines v. Miller, 111 U. S. 395, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426, 28: 466 819. Any claim which, as a matter of right, could have been made on a communistic society under a provision of its plan that members who contributed no property to the society should, on withdrawing, receive such sum as the leaders of the society should determine, will from long lapse of time be presumed to have been demanded and the demand satisfied. Schwartz v. Duss, 187 U. S. 8, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 4, 47: 53 820. A presumption of payment from lapse of time may be met by circumstances— such as the existence of war, etc.-which may account for the delay in bringing the suit. Higginson v. Mein, 4 Cranch, 415, 2: 664 Cited in Whittington v. Flint, 43 Ark. 515, 51 Am. Rep. 572-Gulick v. Loder, 13 N. J. L. 73, 23 Am. Dec. 711-Jackson ex dem. Sackett v. Sackett, 7 Wend. 98-Taylor v. Coleman, 20 Tex. 777. 818. A mortgage, where the mortgagor has been permitted to retain possession, will be presumed paid after twenty years, unless circumstances such as payment of interest, promise to pay, an acknowledgment that the mortgage is still existing, and the like-can 821. Payment of a bond will not be prebe shown sufficiently strong to repel the pre-sumed from the lapse of less than twenty sumption. Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. years, exclusive of time in which the plain6: 142 tiff was under legal disability to sue. DunDistinguished in Sullivan v. Hadley, 16 Ark. lop v. Ball, 2 Cranch, 180, 2: 246 145-Cook v. Union Trust Co. (Cook v. BraDistinguished in Boardman v. De Forest, 5 mel) 106 Ky. 810, 45 L.R.A. 214, 51 S. W. Conn. 13. 600-Murdock v. Waterman, 145 N. Y. 66, 27 L.R.A. 422, 39 N. E. 829. 489. Held obiter in Browne v. Browne, 17 Fla. 625, 35 Am. Rep. 96. Cited in Almy v. Wilbur, 2 Woodb. & M. 403, Fed. Cas. No. 256-Dexter v. Arnold, 3 Sumn. 159, Fed. Cas. No. 3,859-Fox v. Blossom, 17 Blatchf. 355, Fed. Cas. No. 5,008-Mitchell v. Thompson. 1 McLean, 106, Fed. Cas. No. 9.669 Ransdale v. Grove, 4 McLean, 284, Fed. Cas. No. 11,570-New York L. Ins. Co. v. Lord, 40 C. C. A. 591, 100 Fed. 23 Tillotson v. Doe, 5 Ala. 412, 39 Am. Dec. 330-Byrd v. McDaniel, 33 Ala. 27-Ringo V. Woodruff, 43 Ark. 491-Haskell v. Bailey, 22 Conn. 572-Perkins v. Cartmell, 4 Harr. (Del.) 275, 42 Am. Dec. 753-Morgan V. Morgan, 10 Ga. 305-Harris v. Mills, 28 Ill. 48, 81 Am. Dec. 259-Pollock v. Maison, 41 I. 520-Locke v. Caldwell, 91 Ill. 420 Cited in Ransdale v. Grove, 4 McLean, 284, Fed. Cas. No. 11,570-Beverly v. Burke, 9 Ga. 447, 54 Am. Dec. 351-Reddington V. Julian, 2 Ind. 225-Thorpe v. Corwin, 20 N. J. L. 318-Summerville v. Holliday, 1 Watts, 521-Shubrick v. Adams, 20 S. C. 56. 821a. To induce presumption of payment of a bond from lapse of time, twenty years must have elapsed, exclusive of a period disability to recover because they were alien during which plaintiffs were under a legal enemies. Dunlop v. Ball, 2 Cranch, 180, 2: 246 822. [There is no room for presumption, from length of time, of payment by the holder of a land warrant, where payment gives a right to a patent, and that has not been obtained. Penn v. Klyne (C. Ct.) 4 executors, although vouchers were not proDall. 402, duced for such payment. Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. 532, 1: 884] 823. On demurrer to a writ of scire facias to revive a judgment, the court will not indulge a presumption from lapse of time that the judgment has been discharged. Walden v. Craig, 14 Pet. 147, 10: 393 Negotiable paper. See also supra, 638; Sale, 130. 824. If the note be at the place where it is payable on the day it falls due, the onus of proving payment falls upon the parties who are liable to pay it. Fullerton v. Bank of United States, 1 Pet. 604, 7: 280 Cited in Bank of United States v. Carneal, 2 Pet. 549, 7 L. ed. 516-Chickopee Bank V. Seventh Nat. Bank, 8 Wall. 648, 19 L. ed. 425-Magenau v. Bell, 14 Neb. 8, 14 N. W. 50, 72 Am. Dec. 416. 9:522 829. An administrator who renders an account is bound to establish the items of it by evidence, and may be held to strict proof by the parties interested, without a formal opposition on their part. Gaines v. Hennen, 24 How. 553, 16: 770 830. A curator of a succession will not be entitled to credit for amounts paid without ture to vouchers are genuine, but he must a court order by admissions that the signaprove that the debts were really due by the succession. Gaines v. Hennen, 24 How. 553, 16: 770 Advancement or bequest. 664-Bank of Syracuse v. Hollister, 17 N. Y. rent who is in debt to the child is presumed 831. An advancement to a child by a pato be a satisfaction of the debt pro tanto. Glover v. Patten, 165 U. S. 394, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 411, 41: 760 825. An agreement for extension of time of payment of a note cannot be inferred from the mere payment of interest, where the holder never agreed to extend payment except upon receiving a new note signed by both makers of the old one, which was never given. Bank of Uniontown v. Mackey, 140 U. S. 220, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 844, 35: 485 Cited in Scott v. Scruggs, 95 Ala. 388, 11 So. 215-Pearce v. Strickler, 9 N. M. 477, 54 Pac. 748-Bank of British Columbia v. Jeffs, 15 Wash. 236, 46 Pac. 247-Lawrence v. Thom, 9 Wyo. 423, 64 Pac. 339. 826. Where advances are made to a captain in a foreign port, upon his request, to pay for necessary repairs or supplies to enable his vessel to prosecute her voyage, or to pay harbor dues, or for pilotage, towage, and like services rendered to the vessel, and he gives drafts upon the owners of the vessel, they are presumed to be in conditional payment only. The Emily B. Souder v. Pritchard (The Emily Souder) 17 Wall. 666, 832. A presumption that indebtedness of a testatrix to children is extinguished by a bequest does not arise where the will is made several years before the indebtedness is liquidated, especially where it appears that the testatrix did not consider that the indebtedness to one of the children was extinguished. Glover v. Patten, 165 U. S. 394, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 411, 41: 760 Credit. Conclusiveness of Presumption that Repairs and Supplies Were Made upon Vessel's Credit, see infra, 2576. Conclusiveness of Presumption of Nec essity for Credit for Repairs or Supplies to Vessel, see infra, 2577. See also supra, 166; Insurance, 140; Maritime Liens, 23, 42-44, 46. den is on the owner to prove that they might 833-4. If advances are necessary, the burhave been obtained on his personal credit. 8: 1036 The Virgin v. Vyfhius, 8 Pet. 538, 7 835. Where the policy is delivered without requiring payment of the premium, the presumption is that a credit was intended, and the policy is valid. Brooklyn L. Ins. Co. v. Miller (Miller v. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co.) 12 Wall. 285, 21: 683 827. The presumption in Massachusetts, that a note extinguishes the debt or claim for which it is given, may be repelled and controlled by evidence that such was not the intention of the parties, and this evidence may arise from the general nature of the transaction as well as from direct testimony to the fact. Duncan v. Kimball (The 18:50 Kimball) 3 Wall. 37, Cited in The Helen M. Pierce, 2 Haskell, 209, Fed. Cas. No. 6,332-Bradway v. Groenendyke, 153 Ind. 511, 55 N. E. 434-Mason v. Douglas, 6 Ind. App. 561, 33 N. E. 1009. Payments by executor or administrator. 828. Taxes paid upon the testator's estate will be presumed to have been paid by the 20: 398 |