Brown v. Stone
Supreme Court of Louisiana
^ PPEAL from the District Gourt of Madison, Selby, J. By the laws of Mississippi, all actions upon instruments of the kind sued on, are barred by the statute of limitations, after the lapse of six years from their maturity. Howard & Hutchison’s Digest, p. 569, s. 91. But by the 99th sec. of the same act (page 571), so long as the debtor is not a resident of said State, the prescription remains in abeyance.
Read the full summary
^ PPEAL from the District Gourt of Madison, Selby, J. By the laws of Mississippi, all actions upon instruments of the kind sued on, are barred by the statute of limitations, after the lapse of six years from their maturity. Howard & Hutchison’s Digest, p. 569, s. 91. But by the 99th sec. of the same act (page 571), so long as the debtor is not a resident of said State, the prescription remains in abeyance. The debt therefore not being extinguished in Mississippi, we have only to test it by the laws of our own State. By art. 3505 G. C. actions upon bills of exchange and promissory notes are…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of tfro court (King, J. absent,) was pronounced by
Rost, J.
This suit was brought by attachment upon a promissoiy note of the defendant, who is a citizen of the State of Arkansas, subscribed and made payable in the State of Mississippi. At the time of the institution of this suit more than five years had elapsed after the note became due, and the defence set up is the plea of prescription, under art. 3505 C. C.
The case is before us on the appeal of the defendant, and the only question it presents is, whether the action, not having been commenced within the period jpresgribed by the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. HaackDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1943
- State v. Alden MillsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1942
- Wilhite v. South Central Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1976
- Staples v. WaiteSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1910