Bell v. Elliott

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Bell v. Elliott

8 La. Ann. 453

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedSeptember 15, 1853

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 8 La. Ann. 453 (Bell v. Elliott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Elliott, 8 La. Ann. 453 (La. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 La. Ann. 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-elliott-la-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack