Pruyn v. Young

Citations

• 51 La. Ann. 320
• 25 So. 125
• 1899 La. LEXIS 402

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>One who claims under a sale made to him by his father, who was in insolvent circumstances, if the sale be attacked for simulations, must show that the sale was a real bona -fide transaction.</p> <p>A similar presumption arises, shifting the burden of proof from the one attacking to the vendee, if the father remain in possession of the property after the sale.</p> <p>The testimony of vendee alone in his own behalf (who fails to show why the other parties to tlie act have not testified), is not sufficient to overcome three separate, strong presumptions, established by law (to-wit, one arising from relationship between the parties to the sales ; continued possession of the vendor after the sale, and failuie to introduce corroborative testimony or failure to account for its absence).</p> <p>The testimony would have had a bearing upon the principal issue.</p> <p>The means of proof were accessible to plaintiff; it was for him to produce the proof, as on him was the' onus probanM.</p> <p>“Where effective proofs are in the power of a party who refuses or neglects to produce them, that naturally raises a presumption that they would, if produced, make against him.” Best on Evidence, p. 277.</p>