Negative

Negative propositions are usually much more difficult of proof than affirmative, and in cases where they are involved, it is often a nice question upon which side lies the burden of proof. The general rule has been thus stated: Whoever asserts a right dependent for its existence upon a negative, must establish the truth of the negative, except where the matter is peculiarly within the knowledge of the adverse party. Otherwise rights of which a negative forms an essential element may be enforced without proof; Goodwin v. Smith, 72 Ind. 113, 37 Am. Rep. 144; Hale v. Smith, 78 N. Y. 4S0. Thus in actions for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove that there was no probable cause; Carey v. Sheets, 67 Ind. 375; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 454. The rule applies whenever the claim is founded in a breach of duty in not repairing highways, and in cases of mutual negligence; Ilale v. Smith, 7S N. Y. 4S0; Shearm. Sc Red. Nog. 312. So one must prove the allegation that a negotiable promissory note was not taken in payment of a debt; Smith v. Bettger, 68 tenant that he did not repair; 9 C. Sc P. 734; 6 II. L. C. 672. In all actions for breach of warranty of the soundness of a personal chattel, the plaintiff must prove the negative. “It may be stated as a test admitting of universal application, that whether the proposition be affirmative or negative, the party against whom judgment would be given, as to a particular issue, supposing no proof to be offered on either side, has on him, whether he be plaintiff or defendant, the burden of proof which he must satisfactorily sustain.” 1 Whart. Ev. § 357; see 14 M. & W. 95; Ileinemann v. Heard, 62 N. Y. 448; Maltman v. Williamson, 69 111. 423; Colorado C. & 1. Co. v. U. S., 123 U. S. 317, 8 Sup. Ct. 131, 31 L. Ed. 182.

A denial; a proposition by which something is denied; a statement in the form of denial. Two negatives do not make a good issue. Steph. PI. 386, 387.

— Negative averment. As opposed to the traverse or simple denial of an affirmative allegation, a negative averment is an allegation of some substantive fact, e. g., that premises are not in repair, which, although negative in form, is really affirmative in substance, and the party alleging the fact of non-repair must prove t. Brown.

— Negative condition. One by which it is stipulated that a given thing shall not happen.

— Negative pregnant. In pleading. A negative implying also an affirmative. Cowell. Such a form of negative expression as may imply or carry within it an affirmative. Steph. PI. 318; Fields v. State, 134 Ind. 46, 32 N. E. 780; Stone v. Quaal, 36 Minn. 46, 29 N. W. 326. As if a man be said to have aliened land in fee, and he says he has not aliened in fee, this is a negative pregnant; foe, though it be true that he has not aliened in fee, yet it may be that he has made an estate in tail. Cowell. As to negative "Covenant," "Easement," "Servitude," "Statute," and "Testimony," see those titles.

A denial; a form or expression of denial; a proposition by which something is denied. Negative pregnant: a negative imply-

A denial; a proposition by which something is denied; a statement in the form of denial. Two negatives do not make a good issue. Steph. Pl. 386, 387,

la used in an untechnical sense, in opposition to affirmative or positive; as, negative or a negative — allegation, averment, condition, covenant, easement, evidence, statute, qq. v. Whoever asserts a right dependent for its existence upon a negative must establish the truth of the negative, except where the matter is peculiarly within the knowledge of the adverse party — as, that the latter I>as no license for selling liquor.^ It is not a maxim of law that a negative is incapable of proof. WTien the negative ceases to be a siniple' one,— when it is qualified by time, place, or circumstance,— much of the objection is removed; andproofof a negative may reasonably be required when the qualifying circumstances are the direct matter in issue, or the affirmative is either probable in itself, or supported by a presumption, or peculiar means of proof are in the hands of the party asserting the negative... When a presumption is in favor of a party who asserts the negative, it affords an additional reason for casting the burden of proof on his adversaiy; it is when a presumption is in favor of the party who asserts the affirmative that its effect becomes visible, as the opposite side is then bound to prove his negative. One class of exceptions to the rule, that the burden of proof rests on the party holding the affirmative, includes the cases in which the plaintiff grounds his right of action upon a negative allegation which is an essential element in his case... So, where the negative allegation involves a charge of ci'iniinal neglect of duty, or fraud, or the wrongful violation of actual lawful possession of property, the party making the allegation must prove it; for in those cases the presumption of law is in favor of the party charged.^ See Affirm, 1. Negative pregnant. The statement of a negative proposition in such a form as may imply or carry with it the admission of an affirmative. A fault, within the rule that a pleading must not be ambiguous in meaning.* J Fontaine v. Thompson, 80 Va, 229, 232, 234 (1885), cases. 2 Goodwin v. Smith, 73 Ind. 113 (1880); 67 id. 375;. 68 id. 254; 78 N. Y. 480; 37 Am, R. 141, cases; Gould, PI. 93, 344. 3 Best, Ev. (Am. ed., 1883), §§ 270, 273, 276, cases; 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 78, 80. Approved, Colorado Coal & Iron Co. V. "United States, 123 U. S. 317 (1887), Matthews, J. See 1 Whart. Ev. § 356, cases.

This word has several significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to giving assent; thus we say the president has put his negative upon such a bill. Vide Veto. 2. It is also used in contradistinction to affirmative; as, a negative does not admit of the simple and direct proof of which an affirmative is capable. Vide 2 Gall. Rep. 485; 1 M‘Cord, R. 573; 11 John. R. 513; 19 John. R. 345; 1 Pick. R. 375; Gilb. Ev. 145; 1 Stark. Ev. 376; Bull. N. P. 298; 15 Vin. Ab. 540; 5 Bac. Ab. 408.