Case Name: James Dunlop and Wife v. Thomas Peter et al.
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1807-06
Citations: 1 Cranch 403
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Dunlop and Wife v. Thomas Peter et al.
Judges: Duckett, J.,' absent.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 1
Pages: 403–403

Head Matter:
James Dunlop and Wife v. Thomas Peter et al.
The party, iipon whom, the burden of proof is thrown by the issue is to open and close the argument.
Issue from the Orphans’ Court to ascertain the sanity of a.testator. It was made a question who was to open and close the argument.
Mr. Mason and Mr. F. S. Key, for the defendants.
The plea is that the testator was of sound mind, and of this they put themselves ' on the country; the affirmative of the issue is with the defendants.
Mr. P. B. Key and Mr. Jones, contra.
He who has the burden of proof is to open and close. Every man is presumed to be sane, until the contrary is proved. The plaintiffs were the original libellants, and the general rule is that the plaintiff is to open and close unless special circumstances make the other rule necessary. The affirmative of the issue is with us, not the mere form of words,-but' the substance ; we have the burden of proof.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The substance of the affirmative of the issue is with the plaintiffs, the original; libellants. They are the party who wish to alter' the existing 'state of things. The defendants can offer no evidence until the sanity of the testator is impeached. The defendants have nothing to do. The plaintiff is the'mover, the actor, and on him the burden of proof lies. It is his busines therefore to open and close the argument.
Duckett, J.,' absent.