Pearson v. Harper

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Pearson v. Harper

11 La. Ann. 184

DecidedMarch 15, 1856

StatusPublished

This text of 11 La. Ann. 184 (Pearson v. Harper) 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

Pearson v. Harper, 11 La. Ann. 184 (La. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

Buchanan, J.

This is a suit instituted upon the following obligations of defendant’s testator, Stephen M. Ford: Three notes payable to order, of which one was due the 1st of January, 1843, and two, the 1st of January, 1845; also, an account for merchandise sold, with a due bill at the bottom, (not negotiable,) dated 24th of April, 1843.

This suit was instituted in September, 1855. Defendant pleads prescription; and plaintiffs have offered as evidence of an interruption, a letter of Ford to one MoAlpin, dated 14th March, 1850, and the testimony of a witness, Johnston, of conversations with Ford, in the year 1853. The letter was properly admitted in evidence. MoAlpin appears from the letter to have been an agent of plaintiffs. The letter and the testimony contain substantially the same offer on the part of Ford, to give plaintiffs in payment or discharge of their claims, a tract of land, provided they would give one hundred dollars to boot. This offer was declined ; and upon the principle of the case of Lackey v. Macmurdo, 9 An., there was no interruption of the prescription.

Judgment reversed, and judgment for defendant, with costs in both courts.

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

Buchanan, J.

This is a suit instituted upon the following obligations of defendant’s testator, Stephen M. Ford: Three notes payable to order, of which one was due the 1st of January, 1843, and two, the 1st of January, 1845; also, an account for merchandise sold, with a due bill at the bottom, (not negotiable,) dated 24th of April, 1843.

This suit was instituted in September, 1855. Defendant pleads prescription; and plaintiffs have offered as evidence of an interruption, a letter of Ford to one MoAlpin, dated 14th March, 1850, and the testimony of a witness, Johnston, of conversations with Ford, in the year 1853. The letter was properly admitted in evidence. MoAlpin appears from the letter to have been an agent of plaintiffs. The letter and the testimony contain substantially the same offer on the part of Ford, to give plaintiffs in payment or discharge of their claims, a tract of land, provided they would give one hundred dollars to boot. This offer was declined ; and upon the principle of the case of Lackey v. Macmurdo, 9 An., there was no interruption of the prescription.

Judgment reversed, and judgment for defendant, with costs in both courts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 La. Ann. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-harper-la-1856.