Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-1-203 (2026)
Transactions with decedent or ward - Dead man's statute
✓ current as of May 2026
In actions or proceedings by or against executors, administrators, or guardians, in which judgments may be rendered for or against them, neither party shall be allowed to testify against the other as to any transaction with or statement by the testator, intestate, or ward, unless called to testify thereto by the opposite party. If a corporation is a party, this disqualification shall extend to its officers of every grade and its directors.
Acts 1869-1870, ch. 78, § 2; Shan., § 5598; Code 1932, § 9780; Acts 1947, ch. 88, § 2; C. Supp. 1950, § 9780; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 24-105.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Holliman v. McGrew, 343 S.W.3d 68 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
Holliman v. McGrew, 343 S.W.3d 68 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Plaintiffs first responded that the statements relied on by the Defendants were inadmissible under Tenn.Code Ann. § 24-1-203, commonly known as the Dead Man’s Statute.”
Boote v. Shivers, 198 S.W.3d 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Boote’s daughters argue that this statement was barred by Tennessee’s version of the Dead Man’s Statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 24-1-203 (2000), that the trial court erred as a matter of law in admitting it, and that the trial court’s finding of duress based on this statement must…”
In Re Est. of Haskins, 224 S.W.3d 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “T.C.A. § 24-1-203. At trial, during Mr. Haskins’ direct testimony, the estate objected to his counsel’s questioning about Mr.”
In Re Est. of Eden, 99 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Carver's testimony was inadmissible under Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-1-203 (1980), the so-called "dead man's statute.”
State v. Boling, 840 S.W.2d 944 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). “…were found guilty of aggravated kidnapping. The judgments reflect the proper convictions and sentences. 2 . Tenn.Code Ann. § 24-1-203.”
In Re Est. of Marks, 187 S.W.3d 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Marks, Tenn.Code Ann. § 24-1-203 (2000), Tennessee’s version of the Dead Man’s Statute, prevented *28 her from testifying about her agreement ■with Mr.”
Ingram v. Phillips, 684 S.W.2d 954 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). “Defendant’s issues fifteen and sixteen complain that the Chancellor erroneously excluded evidence under the “Dead Man Statute,” Tenn.Code Ann. § 24-1-203. She insists that plaintiff waived the provisions of the statute by taking her discovery deposition and “asking her in great…”
Cantrell v. Est. of Cantrell, 19 S.W.3d 842 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “On appeal the appellant challenges the trial court’s application of the Dead Man’s Statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-1-203 , to exclude parts of her testimony, and the court’s finding that she entered into the agreement freely, knowingly, and after a full and fair disclosure of the…”
Kryder v. Est., 296 F. Supp. 3d 892 (M.D. Tenn. 2017). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-1-203 . "The purpose of the Dead Man's Statute is to protect estates from spurious claims," and "is based on the common-law principle that an interested party will be powerfully tempted to misrepresent transactions or communications with a deceased person…”
Leffew v. Mayes, 685 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). “The executor’s attorney repeatedly objected to the plaintiff testifying about the transaction with the deceased, the basis of the objections being the Dead Man’s Statute, T.C.A., § 24-1-203, which provides: § 24-1-203.”
Burchett v. Stephens, 794 S.W.2d 745 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). “Plaintiff insists that defendants did not prove release by a preponderance of the evidence for the reason that the evidence of release was inadmissible, citing T.C.A. § 24-1-203 as follows: In actions or proceedings by or against executors, administrators, or guardians, in which…”
Spiller v. McDonald, Kuhn, Smith, Miller, & Tait, 735 S.W.2d 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “This appeal involves the application of the Deadman’s Statute, T.C.A. § 24-1-203 (1980). Appellant, McDonald, Kuhn, Smith, Miller and Tait, a partnership, filed a claim against the Estate of Elizabeth Lucille Pritchard, deceased, for legal services rendered by the partnership to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.