What is the ruling if one states, 'I do not know that so-and-so has more than a certain amount,' and evidence proves a larger sum is owed?

Primary text

If the debtor states, 'I do not know that so-and-so has more than X amount,' and evidence proves a greater sum, only the amount acknowledged is incumbent upon the debtor. This is because the true extent of the wealth is not known definitively, potentially having both an apparent and hidden aspect. One cannot be forced to acknowledge what one does not know, so the ruling reverts to what the acknowledging party believed, confirmed by an oath, if a greater amount is claimed against them.