Garland v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. contended that the maxim, Contra non va-lentem &c., cannot apply to the plaintiff’s case, as he might have caused a curator ad hoc to be appointed and have sued. Civil Code, art. 57. C. P. art. 116. 12 La. 606. 6 Rob. 147, 534. 15 La. 145. 19 La. 262. 1 Peters, 360.
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Rost, J.
The plaintiff, a resident of the city of New Orleans, obtained judgment against the defendant, who resides in the State of Mississippi, fot; wages as. captain of a steamboat, the property of the defendant. The services *405were rendered from the 14th of September, to the 14^Mr May, 1844, and this action was commenced on the 27th of May, 1845, mor^han one year after the rendition of the services. The defendant filed, ■ under art. 3499 of the Civil Code, a plea of prescription, which was disregarded by the court below, and he appealed.
Points of law…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bell v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Hill v. BarlowSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1843
- Tyson v. M'GillSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1840
- Broadway's Heirs v. PoolSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1841
3Cited by3 opinions
- Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v. ChaissonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1955
- Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v. ChaissonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1955
- State Ex Rel. Murtagh v. Department of City Civil ServiceSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1949