Legal Opinion
Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Swink
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided January 15, 1931No. 2 Div. 957PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
It seems to be well settled that where the plaintiff in stating his cause of action must affirm a negative, he has the burden of proving the. negative averment unless the facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. Rogers v. Brooks, 105 Ala. 549, 17 So. 97; Pollak v. Winter, 166 Ala. 255, 51 So. 998, 52 So. 829, 53 So. 339, 139 Am. St. Rep. 33.
This rule applies alike to pleading statutes or contracts, where the plaintiff relies on a general clause embodying an exception. Lunt v. Ætna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, 253 Mass. 610, 149 N. E. 660; 1 Chitty on Pl. 206; 1 Greenl. on Ev.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Whitlatch v. . Fidelity and Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Carnes v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'nSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Woodward Iron Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Freeman v. BlountSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. MurphySupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- Prudential Ins. Co. v. CalvinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. WilkesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1935
- Dorsey v. DorseySupreme Court of Alabama · 1953
- Erbrich Products Co., Inc. v. WillsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1987
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.