Legal Opinion

Bell v. Elliott

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided September 15, 1853PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Parish of St. Mary, YoorMes, J.

1Opinion of the Court

Slidell, 0. J.

The note is prescribed unless prescription has been interrupted. The only interruption asserted is the former suit against the defendant upon the same note. But the plaintiif then was called and not appearing, was nonsuited. In such a case, at least when unexplained, the Article 8486, 0. 0., applies, and the interruption is considered as not having occurred. There is an attempt to explain the plaintiff’s failure to appear, but it is loose and defective. It does not appear that the plaintiff had used diligence, or was taken by surprise.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Levy v. StellyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1970
  2. Teutonia Loan & Building Co. v. ConnollySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1913
  3. Newson v. BaileyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1956