Britton v. Brice

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Britton v. Brice

1 Gunby 83

DecidedJuly 1, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Gunby 83 (Britton v. Brice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Britton v. Brice, 1 Gunby 83 (La. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Mayo, J.

Where plaintiff sues on an obligation prescribed on its face, no law requires him to set forth how or when the prescription was interrupted and suspended. All kinds of evidence to show interruption are admissible.

2. Where suit was filed in a Parish Court against the Judge-thereof, and a judgment was rendered by a Judge ad hoc therein, and said judgment was subsequently stricken out and the case referred to the District Judge, when another judgment was rendered, which judgment was subsequently annulled, the suit was still left pending in the Parish Court.

3. If, therefore, after the judgment of nullity the plaintiff institutes a new suit, this act constitutes a voluntary abandonment or discontinuance of the former pending suit, and by C. C. 3519, the citation in the suit thus actively abandoned will not work an interruption of prescription. 7 An. 523; 10 An. 331.

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

Mayo, J.

Where plaintiff sues on an obligation prescribed on its face, no law requires him to set forth how or when the prescription was interrupted and suspended. All kinds of evidence to show interruption are admissible.

2. Where suit was filed in a Parish Court against the Judge-thereof, and a judgment was rendered by a Judge ad hoc therein, and said judgment was subsequently stricken out and the case referred to the District Judge, when another judgment was rendered, which judgment was subsequently annulled, the suit was still left pending in the Parish Court.

3. If, therefore, after the judgment of nullity the plaintiff institutes a new suit, this act constitutes a voluntary abandonment or discontinuance of the former pending suit, and by C. C. 3519, the citation in the suit thus actively abandoned will not work an interruption of prescription. 7 An. 523; 10 An. 331.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Gunby 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britton-v-brice-lactapp-1885.