Coote v. Cotton
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Eastern Dis. APPEA.L PROM THE COORT OF THE FIRST DISTRICT. This was an action to recover from the defendant the value of services rendered by the plaintiff in collecting, selling and superintending slaves, to which the defendant opposed the prescription of one or three years. On the trial of the cause the defendant’s counsel prayed the court to charge the jury that the plaintiff’s claim was prescribed by the lapse of one year, according to Art. 3499, of the Civil Code.
Read the full summary
Eastern Dis. APPEA.L PROM THE COORT OF THE FIRST DISTRICT. This was an action to recover from the defendant the value of services rendered by the plaintiff in collecting, selling and superintending slaves, to which the defendant opposed the prescription of one or three years. On the trial of the cause the defendant’s counsel prayed the court to charge the jury that the plaintiff’s claim was prescribed by the lapse of one year, according to Art. 3499, of the Civil Code. But if not, that so much of it as did not arise within three years previous to the institution of the suit, was prescribed…
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The defendant and appellant has built his hopes of the revisal of the judgment, and having the case remanded for a new trial on a bill of exceptions which he took to the opinion of the court, who declined to instruct the jury that the action was barred by the lapse of one or three years, and charged that the prescription of ten years was alone applicable thereto.
The plaintiff claimed compensation for services rendered to the defendant, during nine years in buying and selling slaves, and in collecting and superintending others purchased by the defendant.
The evidence shows that the plaintiff…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Sullivan v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1847
- Tillman v. New Orleans Saints Football ClubLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1972
- Toler v. MunsonLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1935
- Universal Motor Co. v. RollandLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1932