Case ID: la-ann_22/html/0326-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ludeling, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 1930.
    Frederick Bauer v. The Succession of Jean E. Martin.
    If tbe record shows lhat the court below lias erred in maintaining tbe pica of prescription, it will be reverse i on appeal, and, if no other defense is set up, tbe Supreme Coiut will give judgment in conformity with the demand.
    APPEAL from Second District Court, parish of Orleans. Thomas, J.
    
      Whitaker & Hice, for plaintiff and appellant. Collens & Wooldridge, for defendant and appellee.
   Ludeling, C. J.

This suit is based on two promissory notes. The defense is prescription. An examination of the record convinces ns that the pilca is untenable.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that tho judgment of the district court ho avoided, and that there bo judgment against tbe defendant for the sum of six hundred dollars, with six pier cent, per annum interest on three hundred dollars, from twenty-seventh July, 1861 to twenty-seventh July, 1863, and at tho rate of eight pier cent, per annum thereafter till paid; and six per centum per annum interest on three hundred dollars from the twenty-seventh of July, 1861, to twenty-seventh July, 1862, and eight per centum per annum interest thereafter, subject to a credit of seventy-six dollars and seventy-five cents paid on tho twenty-second day of March, 1867, and for costs of both courts, to be paid in due course of administration.