Case ID: la-ann_5/html/0551-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Slidell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry C. Dwight et al. v. Robert B. Brashear.
    A judgment which has been annulled for the want of citation does not interrupt prescription.
    APPEAL from the District Court of St. Mary, Vborhies, J.
    
      Splane, for plaintiff.
    
      Brent, for defendant.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

If it be conceded that the defendant was a co-debtor in solido with Bemiss, and that the prescription was interrupted by the judicial pursuit of the latter, still it began to run again in Brashear’s favor; and a sufficient time thereafter elapsed to release him by prescription. See Hite v. Vaught, 2d Ann. 971.

The judgment against Brashear was a nullity for want of citation, and was adjudged null. We are unable to understand how such a judgment can be considered as suspending prescription until its nullity is judicially declared. The decree by which it was declared void, ascertained, but did not create its nullity.

It is therefore decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, with costs.