Cassou v. Robbert

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Cassou v. Robbert

116 So. 714, 166 La. 101, 1928 La. LEXIS 1846

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 9, 1928

DocketNo. 26796.

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 116 So. 714 (Cassou v. Robbert) 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

Cassou v. Robbert, 116 So. 714, 166 La. 101, 1928 La. LEXIS 1846 (La. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

ROGERS, J.

The defendant is sued as the indorser of a promissory note for $3,000, dated November 18, 1918, payable on demand, made by one Fernand Cavelier to his order, and by himself also indorsed. In the petition • it is alleged, among- other things, that in April, 1920, plaintiff sued defendant on the note, but discontinued the suit after exceptions had been filed thereto. The present action was instituted on M!arch 10, 1924. Defendant pleaded the prescription of five years. The court below maintained the plea, and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff has appealed.

The judgment appealed from is correct. An action on a promissory note is prescribed by five years from its maturity. Civ. Code, art. 3540. Where a note is payable on demand, this prescription runs from the date of the note, and nót from the demand. Darby v. Darby, 120 La. 847, 45 So. 747, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1208, 14 Ann. Cas. 805. A voluntary discontinuance of a prior suit on a note does not interrupt prescription. Civ. Code, art. 3519.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at the cost of the appellant.

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

ROGERS, J.

The defendant is sued as the indorser of a promissory note for $3,000, dated November 18, 1918, payable on demand, made by one Fernand Cavelier to his order, and by himself also indorsed. In the petition • it is alleged, among- other things, that in April, 1920, plaintiff sued defendant on the note, but discontinued the suit after exceptions had been filed thereto. The present action was instituted on M!arch 10, 1924. Defendant pleaded the prescription of five years. The court below maintained the plea, and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff has appealed.

The judgment appealed from is correct. An action on a promissory note is prescribed by five years from its maturity. Civ. Code, art. 3540. Where a note is payable on demand, this prescription runs from the date of the note, and nót from the demand. Darby v. Darby, 120 La. 847, 45 So. 747, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1208, 14 Ann. Cas. 805. A voluntary discontinuance of a prior suit on a note does not interrupt prescription. Civ. Code, art. 3519.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at the cost of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 So. 714, 166 La. 101, 1928 La. LEXIS 1846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassou-v-robbert-la-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack