The Opelousas journal. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1868-1878, 1869-07-17
Contradictory Systems of Juris-
prudeucp.

The Disadvantages resulting from the ad
miniStration oftwo different legal systems
in this State-thr system admins cred in
the United States courts which only partial
~ conforms to that of the 1.onisiaGa courts
and the civil law system which differs, IL
many respects, so widely from the other
has been well exhibited by two notable de.
ri>ions rendered by the Supreme Court OF
I.o 'iSiana. which are in direct conflict with
; a decision rendered by the Circrit Court Of
/ the Urit,d tat,s sitting in this tate
+ In one OF these cases, that Of Wainwrigh
US. rihre>---,hn Supreme Court Of Loui-
>;ana decided that contracts, entered in,o
previous to tie tt war, whose eonsdera
i"n vas lave lrolartv, could lot be ell
fn'c'i }v the courts hel"nring to the State,
b r,r t,l hi,ilen h, the L. n>titulin.
III anutLrr Of tlc>e cas- s-tllat Of Ssni,tI
vs. S:ewnlt- it was decided by the same
Surrc,n- t"ult that war aud civil commo
tiun and the closing of courts do not sus,
pend prescription, because such state of
. things d'c> not form one of the exceptions
10 the rule declared in tn" Civil Code that
! suits ,nu~, be brongh, withina certain time
% presen, their being barred by cfflux OF
time.
The cass in the United States Court
which We allnde to as conflicting with these
decisions, is that Of Campbell Us. Cencrcs
Judge Du'ell held in that case that war
does suspend prescription and tina, obhga
tions bassed upon property in slaves, enter.
ed into previous to the var, are valid, are
not prescribed By lapse OF time, and may be
enforced lie bases his Judgment as 10 the
point of prescription on the ca>e of Honger
VS.. Abbott, decided by the Supreme Court
of the United States, reported in the sixth
volume of Wallace's Reports ard the au.
thoritics there cited.
These rulings of Judge Durell directly
contradict the rulings of the Supreme Court
of Louisiana, and strange state Of things
thcre.upon en>ues. A citizen of Alabama
Union holding an obligation based upon
slaves may now enter the United States
Court here, and if the time fixed by law,
after which he is barred has not elapsed
he may obtain judgment for his debt Bu:
citizen of Louisiana holding such an ob-
legation against another citizen of Louisiana,
has no such redress. lie is not permitted to
sue in the United States Court, and he will
not be heard in the Courts Of Louisiana on
this question. There is, therefore, in this
ate, one law for the citizens of Louisiana
and another for the citizens of other States
A citizen of New York for instance, can ELI
ter the United States Court here with pro-
missory note of a citizen of Louisiana, dated
in 1859 or 1860. and due in 1862 or 3, and
obtain judgment upon it, although five years
have elapsed-the time prescribed by our
State law for bringing such action-6eeause
flee gears hare not elapsed since hostilitaes
ceased A citizen Of Louisiana holding such
an obligation cannot obtain judgment for it
because he is shut out from the United States
Court and he Is blockeFin the Supreme
Court OF Louisiana because that court holds
that state of war does not suspend pre-.
scription.
This is an extraordinary state Of things,
and one which shows the necessity there is
for uniform rule or system of Jurisprudence
which would compel our State Judges to
yield to the opinions Of tie Supreme Court
of the United States.
| 1t does not seem reasonable that litigant
should suffer loss only in consequence Of
the closing of the courts in these States dur
ing the war The theory upon which sta
tutes of limitations proceed, is that there
has been neglect on the part of those who
seek the aid of the courts, and that the Law
| is only for those who are vigllant and not
for those who sleep upon their rights.-N.
| o. Bee.