Prigmore v. E. T., Va. & Ga. R. R.

69 Tenn. 204
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 Tenn. 204 (Prigmore v. E. T., Va. & Ga. R. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Prigmore v. E. T., Va. & Ga. R. R., 69 Tenn. 204 (Tenn. 1878).

Opinion

Cooper, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Action for damages sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant. The defendant relied on the plea of the statute of limitations, and the court charged the jury that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that the injury complained of occurred within the period of limitation. The jury found for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

The counsel of the plaintiff in error concedes, and properly, that the burden of proof is on the party having the affirmative of the issue. The plea of the statute of limitations not being a denial of the matter of declaration, concludes, according to the old forms, with a verification. Overton v. Crabb, 4 Hay., 109. The replication, in a case like the present, must be that the cause of action did accrue within the period of limitation, and concludes to the contrary. 3 Chitty Pl., 1160. The affirmative of the issue is, therefore,, on the plaintiff, and there is no error in the judgment, which must be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jones v. Hamilton County
405 S.W.2d 775 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 Tenn. 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prigmore-v-e-t-va-ga-r-r-tenn-1878.