1578. A person in whose favour an admission is made must not be
absolutely unknown; mere imperfect knowledge of such person, however, does not
invalidate an admission.
, Example:- If a person points to certain property
in his possession and admits that it is the property of some indeterminate
person, or if he admits that the property belongs to one of the inhabitants of a
certain town, the inhabitants of such town being indeterminate in number, such
person's admission is invalid. On the other hand, if he states that the property
belongs to one of two definite persons or to one of the inhabitants of a certain
quarter, and the inhabitants of such place are of a determinate number, the
admission is valid. In the event of a person stating, as mentioned above, that
certain property belongs to one of the two determinate persons, such persons
may, if they agree to do so, take the property from the person making the
admission and thereupon they become joint owners of such property. If they do
not so agree, either of them may place the person making the admission upon his
oath that such property is not his. If the person making the admission refuses
to take the oath in respect to both persons, the property continues to be
jointly owned between them. If the person making the admission refuses to take
oath with regard to one of the persons only, the property goes absolutely to the
person whose oath he refuses. If the person making the admission takes an oath
with regard to both such persons, the former is not liable to any action on the
part of the latter, the property belonging to him and remaining in his
possession.
CHAPTER II. VALIDITY OF AN ADMISSION.
1579. A valid admission may be made with regard to a determinate and also with regard to an
indeterminate object. The validity of an admission relating to contracts which
can only be made with regard to determinate objects, however, such as sale and
hire,depends upon the thing with regard to which the admission is made being
determinate. Thus, a valid admission may be made by a person that a thing
belonging to another person has been entrusted to his safe keeping, or that he
has wrongfully appropriated or stolen the property of another and he shall be
obliged to make known the nature of such property. But if a person admits that
he has sold something to a certain person, or hired something from him such
admission is invalid and he may not be called upon to say what thing he has sold
or hired.
1580. The validity of an admission is not dependent upon the
acceptance of such admission by the person in whose favour the admission is
made. Should such person disclaim the admission, however, such admission is null
and void. If the person in whose favour the admission is made disclaims part of
such admission only, the admission is null and void in regard to that part only,
and is valid in respect to the remainder.
1581. A difference as to the subject of the admission between the
person making the admission and the person in whose favour it is made does not
invalidate the admission. Thus, if a person brings an action for the recovery of
one thousand piastres due under a loan, and the defendant admits one thousand
piastres is due for the price of a thing sold, the difference in no way
invalidates the admission.
1582. A request for a settlement with regard to any property is
equivalent to an admission in respect thereto. Thus, if A requests B to repay a
debt of one thousand piastres and request A to make a settlement for seven
hundred piastres in respect to such debt, A admits the thousands piastres
claimed. But if A states that he will settle the action in respect to the
thousand piastres merely in order to avoid a dispute, there is no admission of
the thousand piastres.
1583. If a person seeks to buy, hire or borrow property in the
possession of another, or requests such person to bestow such property upon him
by way of gift, or to give him such property for safe keeping, or the latter
requests the former to take property into his safe keeping, and such person
agrees to do so, there is an admission made by such person that the property is
not his.
1584. An admission dependent on a condition is null and void. An
admission dependent upon the arrival of a generally recognised period of time,
however, is equivalent to an admission of a debt repayable at a future definite
date.
Example:- A informs B that he will pay him a certain sum of money if
he reaches a certain place or if he undertakes a certain business. The admission
is void and the sum of money need not be paid. But if A states that he will
repay B a certain sum of money on the first of a certain month, or on the
twenty-sixth of October next, such statement is considered to be an admission of
debt repayable at a future definite date, and upon the arrival of such date,
payment of the sum in question must be made. (See Article 40.)
1585. An admission may validly be made that a thing is undivided jointly-owned
property. Consequently, if one person admits to another that he is in possession
of an undivided share of certain immovable property held in absolute ownership
belonging to him, such as a half or a third, and the latter confirms such
admission, and the person making admission dies before the division and delivery
of such property, the fact that the subject matter of the admission is an
undivided share in no way invalidates such admission.
1586. An admission may validly be made by a dumb person using the
recognised signs of such persons. An admission by signs cannot validly be made
by a person who is able to speak. Thus, if one person asks another who is able
to speak whether he is owing some third person a certain sum of money and such
person nods his head, there is no admission of the debt.
CHAPTER III. EFFECT OF AN ADMISSION.
SECTION I. GENERAL.
1587. A person is bound by his admission in accordance with the terms of Article 79,
unless the admission is proved to be false by a judgement of the Court. Thus, a
person is legally entitled to a thing in the possession of another, which the
latter has obtained by purchase. AT the trial, the purchaser, in order to prove
his case, states that the thing sold belong4d to the vendor and that he sold it
to him. The person legally entitled to such thing proves his claim and judgement
is given by the Court in his favour. The purchaser may thereupon take action
against the vendor and recover from him the price of the thing sold, because
although at the trial he opposed the person legally entitled to the thing by
admitting that such thing was the property of the vendor, he is not bound by the
admission, the Court having found such admission to be void of any
foundation.
1588. No person may validly retract an admission made with regard to private
rights. Thus, if a person admits owing a certain sum of money to another and
later retracts his admission, the retraction is invalid and he is bound by his
admission.
1589. Should a person allege that he has not been truthful in
making an admission, the person in whose favour the admission is made shall
swear an oath that such admission is true.
Example:- A gives a written
acknowledgement that he has borrowed a certain sum of money from B. Later, A
denies that he has borrowed such money in fact, in spite of his having given the
acknowledgement, by reason of his not yet having received the money in question
from B. The person in whose favour the admission is made shall then take an oath
that such admission is not false.
1590. If one person admits to another that he is in such person's debt to the extent
of a certain sum of money, and the latter states that the money to paid is not
his, but belongs to another person, and such person confirms that statement, the
money in question becomes the property of the second person in whose favour the
admission is made, but the right of receiving it belongs to the first person in
whose favour the admission is made. Consequently, if the second person in whose
favour the admission is made claims the money from the debtor, the latter is not
obliged to pay it to him. If the debtor, however, pays the debt of his own free
will to the second person in whose favour the admission is made, he is released
from his debt and the first person in whose favour the admission is made cannot
claim it again from the debtor.
SECTION II. DENIAL OF OWNERSHIP AND THE TITLE TO A THING LENT.
1591. If a person making an admission makes it in such a manner as to show
that the subject matter of the admission belongs to him, the result is a gift to
the person in whose favour the admission is made, but such gift does not become
absolute until it has been handed over and received. If he does not do so, the
result is an admission that the subject matter of the admission was the property
of the person in whose favour the admission is made, prior to such admission,
which is tantamount to a denial of ownership.
Examples:-
(1). A states that all his property and things in his possession belong to B,
and that he has no right to them at all. The result is a gift to B of all
property and things in A's possession at that time and delivery and receipt
thereof are essential.
(2). A states that all the property and things attributed to him, with the
exception of the clothes he is wearing, belong to B and do not concern him in
any way. The result is an admission by A that the property in question belongs
to B. Such admission, however, does not include property acquired by A after the
admission.
(3). A states that all his property and things in his shop belong to his eldest
son and that he has no right thereto whatsoever. The result is a gift to his
eldest son of all his property and things in the shop at that time, and such
property must be delivered. But if A states that all property and things in a
certain shop of his belongs to his eldest son and that he has no right thereto
whatsoever, the result is an admission in favour of his son that the property in
such shop is the property of his son and he has denied ownership thereof. This
admission,however, does not include any property placed in the shop afterwards.
(4). A states that his shop situated in such and such a place belongs to his
wife. The result is in the nature of a gift, of which delivery is necessary. But
if A states that such and such a shop reputed to be his belongs to his wife, the
result is an admission that the shop was his wife's property before such
admission and not his own property.
1592. If a person states that the shop which he holds in absolute
ownership and by title deed belongs to some other person, that he has no
connection therewith of any sort, and that his name inscribed in the deed was
lent for convenience only, the result is an admission that the shop belongs to
that other person; or if a person states that a shop which he holds in absolute
ownership bought by title deed from some other person was purchased on behalf of
a third person, that the price was paid out of that person's property, and that
the name of the first person was inscribed in the title deed for convenience
only, the result is an admission that the shop was in fact the property of the
third person.
1593. If a person is in possession of a written acknowledgement
admitting a claim for a certain sum of money against some other person and
states that such sum belongs to a third person, and that his name on the
document has been inscribed for convenience only, the result is an admission
that the sum in question belongs to such third person.
1594. If a person while in good health makes an admission disclaiming ownership as set
out above, or admits that his name has been used for convenience only, his
admission is valid and he is bound by it during his lifetime, and his heirs
likewise after his death. The effect of an admission made as above while the
person making the admission is suffering from a mortal sickness is governed by
the terms of the following Chapter.
SECTION III. ADMISSION BY A PERSON SUFFERING FROM A MORTAL SICKNESS.
1595. A mortal sickness is a sickness where in the majority of
cases death is imminent, and, in the case of a male, where such person is unable
to deal with his affairs outside his home, and in the case of a female, where
she is unable to deal with her domestic duties, death having occurred before the
expiration of one year by reason of such illness, whether the sick person has
been confined to bed or not. Should the sickness be of longer duration and the
period of one year expire while in the same condition such person is regarded as
being in good health and his transactions as valid, unless the illness
increases, and his condition becomes changed for the worse. Should his illness
increase, however, and his condition become worse resulting in death before the
expiration of one year, he is considered from the time of the change up to his
death, to have been suffering from a sickness.
1595. Should a person have no heir at all, or should a man have
no heir other than his wife, or should a woman have no heir other than her
husband, any admission made during the course of a mortal sickness is regarded
as a bequest and will be upheld. Consequently, if a person having no heirs
disclaims ownership of his property during a mortal sickness by making an
admission that the whole thereof belongs to some other person, such admission is
valid, and the estate of the deceased person may not be touched by the
representative of the Treasury. Similarly, if a man having no heir other than
his wife disclaims ownership of his property during a mortal sickness by making
an admission that such property belongs to his wife, or a woman having no heir
other than her husband disclaims ownership of all her property by making an
admission that such property belongs to her husband, such admission is valid and
the estate of neither of the deceased persons may be touched by the
representative of the Treasury.
1597. An admission made by a person during an illness from which
he recovers that property belongs to one of his heirs, is held to be valid.
1598. If a person after having made an admission during a mortal
sickness that certain specific property, or a debt, belongs to one of his heirs,
and then dies, the validity of such admission depends upon the ratification of
the other heirs. If they agree, the admission is held to be good; if not, it is
invalid. Provided that if the other heirs have agreed thereto during the
lifetime of the person making the admission, they cannot withdraw their
agreement and the admission is held to be valid. An admission with regard to
something deposited for safe keeping, moreover, may always validly be made in
favour of an heir. Thus, if a person during a mortal sickness admits that he has
received property which he has deposited for safe keeping with his heir, or that
he has consumed property belonging to his heir known to have been deposited with
him for safe keeping, such admission is valid.
Examples:-
(1). A person admits that he has received property of his deposited for safe
keeping with one of his sons. Such admission is valid and executory.
(2) A person admits that one of his sons has received, as agent, money due to
him from a certain person and that he has handed it over to him. Such admission
is valid.
(3). A person admits that he has sold the property of one his sons entrusted to
him for safe keeping, or his diamond ring worth five thousand piastres lent to
him for his use, and has spent the proceeds on his own business. Such admission
is valid. The value of the ring must be made good from the estate.
1599. In this connection, by heir meant a person who was an heir at the of the sick
person's death. Provided that if a right to inherit arises out of a new cause at
the time of the death of the person making such admission and not previously,
this shall in no way invalidate an admission made while that person was not an
heir. Similarly, if a person during the course of a mortal sickness makes an
admission in favour of a woman who is a stranger to him in respect to certain
property, marries her and then dies, such admission is executory. If the right
to inherit is not produced by such a new cause, however, but by an old one, the
admission is not executory.
Example:- A has a son and makes an admission in
favour of one of his brothers by the same father and mother. Should the son
predecease the father, the admission does not becomes executory merely because
the brother in whose favour the admission was made has become his heir.
1600. An admission made during a mortal sickness but relating to
matters concerning a period during which the person making the admission was in
good health, is considered to be an admission made during a sickness.
Consequently, if a person admits during a mortal sickness that he has been paid
a certain number of piastres due from one of his heirs while he was in a state
of good health, such admission is not executory unless the other heirs confirm
the same. Again, if a person admits during a mortal sickness that he has made a
gift of certain property of his to one of his heirs while in a state of good
health, and that he has delivered the same, such admission is not executory
unless confirmed by the other heirs, or proved by evidence.
1601. An admission made by a person during a mortal sickness to
another person who is not one of such person's own heirs is good, even though it
includes the whole of his property, whether consisting of some specific object
or of some debt. Should it appear that the admission is false, however, it being
a matter of common knowledge that at the time the admission was made, the
subject matter of such admission had become the property of the person making
the admission by way of sale, gift, or transfer on inheritance, such facts must
be duly examined. If the admission was made when drawing up a will, the result
is a gift, and delivery of such gift is necessary. If made when drawing up a
will, it is taken to be a bequest. In any case, the admission is only valid up
to one third of the property of the person making the admission, whether a
bequest or a gift.
1602. Debts contracted in good health take priority over debts
contracted during ill health, that is to say, in the event of the death of a
person whose estate is overwhelmed by debts contracted before his mortal
sickness, such debts are paid in priority to those contracted by him by way of
admission during his mortal sickness. Consequently, debts contracted while in a
state of good health are paid first out of the sick person's estate. If there is
any balance remaining over, debts contracted during sickness and arising out of
clearly ascertained causes, such as purchase, loan, or destruction of property
are considered to be debts contracted while in a state of good health. If the
subject matter of an admission is some specific object, it is dealt with in the
same manner. That is to say, if a person admits to some other person during the
course of a mortal sickness that certain things are that person's property, such
person has no right to the property with regard to which the admission has been
made, unless the debts contracted during good health have been paid, or debts
which are in the nature of debts contracted during good health and which for
reasons as stated above, must be repaid.
1603.If a person admits during the course of a mortal sickness
that he has been paid any sum due from any other person, not being a member of
his family, such admission is receivable. If the debt was contracted by such
person during the course of the illness, the admission is valid. Such admission,
however, is not executory as regards persons who became creditors of the sick
person while he was in a state of good health. If the debt was contracted by
such person while in a state of good health, the admission is valid in any case
and this whether there be debts which were contracted while in a state of good
health or not.
Example: - A while ill admits that he has sold certain
property and received the price thereof while sick. Such admission is valid.
Persons to whom he became indebted while in a state of good health, however, may
refuse to be bound by such admission. If A, however, admits during the course of
a mortal sickness that he has sold certain property while in a state of good
health and has received the price thereof, such admission is valid in any case,
and persons to whom he became indebted while in a state of good health are bound
thereby.
1604. A person who pays a debt due to one of his creditors during
the course of a mortal sickness may not thereby destroy the right of the other
creditors. He may, however, repay a sum of money he borrowed and pay the price
of property he bought while sick.
1605. In this connection, a guarantee of property is considered
in the same light as the original debt. Consequently, if a person becomes surety
for any debt contracted by his heirs or any sum due to him, during the course of
a mortal sickness, it is not executory. If such person becomes surety for some
other person, not being a member of his family, it is valid up to a third of his
property. If such person admits during the course of a mortal sickness that he
has become surety for a person, not being a member of his family, while in a
state of good health, the admission is valid up to the whole extent of his
property. Debts contracted during a state of good health, if any, however, are
preferred.
CHAPTER IV. ADMISSIONS IN WRITING.
1606. An admission in writing is the same as an oral admission. (See Article 69).
1607. If a person causes his own admission to be written down by
some other person, it has the force of an admission. Therefore if a person
instructs a clerk to make out a document to the effect that he is owing another
person a certain sum of money, and himself signs or seals such document, the
document is regarded as though it were written in his own hand and is considered
to be written admission.
1608. The entries made by a merchant in his books which are
properly kept are in the nature of written admissions.
Example:- A, a
merchant, makes an entry in his own register that he owes B a certain sum of
money. Such entry constitutes an admission of the debt, and, should the occasion
arise, is considered as an oral admission.
1609. If a person himself writes or causes a clerk to write an
acknowledgement of a debt, which he signs or seals and delivers to some other
person, and if such acknowledgement is made out in due form, that is to say, in
accordance with the usual practice, it constitutes an admission in writing and
has the same force as an oral admission. Receipts which are normally given are
of the same category.
1610. If any person as mentioned above writes or causes any other person to
write, any acknowledgement of debt, which is signed or sealed, and which he
admits to be his and then denies the debt contained therein, such denial is
disregarded, and the debt must be paid.
Should he deny that the acknowledgement is his, the handwriting or seal being
well known, the denial is disregarded, and action is taken in accordance with
the acknowledgement.
If the handwriting and seal are not well known, such person shall be caused to
write down specimens of his handwriting, which shall be submitted to experts. If
they report that the hand writing in both cases is that of one and the same
person, such person shall be ordered to pay debt in question.
Finally, if the acknowledgement is free from any taint of fraud or forgery,
action shall be taken in accordance with the acknowledgement. If it is not free
from suspicion, however, and should the debtor deny the original debt, he shall,
if the plaintiff so demand, be made to swear an oath that neither the debt nor
the acknowledgement is his.
1611. Should any person give an acknowledgement of a debt as
mentioned above, and then die, and the heirs admit that the acknowledgement was
made by the deceased, the debt must be paid out of the deceased's estate.
Should the heirs deny that the acknowledgement was made by the deceased, and
should his handwriting and seal be well known, action shall be taken in
accordance with such acknowledgement.
1612. If a purse full of money is found among the effects of a
deceased person, and it is written thereon that the purse is the property of
some particular person and has been given to the deceased on trust for safe
keeping, the person in question has a right to take the purse from the estate of
the deceased and there is no need for any further proof.