D.H. May Co. v. Guttman's, Inc., 2 Tenn. App. 43 (1925). See Homer v. Duncan, 7 Tenn. App. 43 (1927), wherein the person served brought a separate action to challenge service and was held to have the burden of disproving service. However, in the present case, defendant argues that the defect in service appears on the face of the return in that it does not bear the signature of the addressee or her duly authorized agent.

It is to be noted that, after the declaration was filed in Dec. 1956, a plea of the general issue was filed by the defendant's attorney of record in Feb. 1957, and no question of the minority of the defendant was ever made until the motion for a new trial was filed in June 1957, when it was raised for the first time. In Homer v. Duncan, 7 Tenn. App. 674, it was said, that in an action to enjoin the collection of a judgment where it was shown that the judgment was based on a note which was executed while the complainant was an infant, the defense of infancy should have been pleaded at the trial and having not been pleaded and judgment entered, the judgment was valid. However, as was pointed out in Magevney v. Karsch, 167 Tenn. 32, 65 S.W.2d 562, 92 A.L.R. 343, the rights of an infant disclosed by the evidence will be protected by the Court without regard to the pleadings.