This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1921 edition. Excerpt: ...a permanent presumption is at the same time in favor of an opposite party. But that is only possible where the two presumptions do not absolutely and completely negative each other. There is no "conflict" of presumptions in such a situation, because there can not be a conflict of presumptions where two ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1921 edition. Excerpt: ...a permanent presumption is at the same time in favor of an opposite party. But that is only possible where the two presumptions do not absolutely and completely negative each other. There is no "conflict" of presumptions in such a situation, because there can not be a conflict of presumptions where two presumptions do not absolutely and completely negative each other. Which means, that if two presumptions run in favor of opposite parties at the same time they do not necessarily "conflic." Presumptions "conflict" only when they run in favor of opposite parties at the same time, and absolutely and completely negative each other, i. e., are equally broad. Parallel presumptions never produce a "shifting" of the burden of going forward with evidence (proof), as between themselves. It is headed in the same direction in each of them. The nearest approach to a conflict between a permanent presumption and a temporary presumption is in a case involving a prime falcie case which is made out by the temporary presumption. The two presumptions in terms contradict and negative each other absolutely and completely, and if allowed to be active at the same time would produce a deadlock. But they are not allowed to conflict. What happens is, that the permanent presumption is replaced by the temporary presumption. In other words, there is a sequence of presumptions. This has been demonstrated in the discussion of the Ohio cases, above (pp. 35-41). The fact that what is deemed proved by a temporay presumption would, if the presumption is not "overcome," necewarily end the case contrary to a permanent presumption in the case does not necessarily mean that the permanent presumption...
Read Less