Case Name: A. T. Stewart & Co. v. Bloom, Kohn & Co.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1871-11
Citations: 23 La. Ann. 748
Docket Number: No. 1072
Parties: A. T. Stewart & Co. v. Bloom, Kohn & Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 748–749

Head Matter:
No. 1072.
A. T. Stewart & Co. v. Bloom, Kohn & Co.
If a caso lias boon taken from the Supremo Court of Louisiana to tbe Supreme Court of tbe United States on a writ of error from a final decree, and the decree of tbo Stato court is rovorsed on tbo plea of prescription, and tbe cause is remanded by tbo Supreme Court of tbe United States to tbe State court, then and in that case tbe Supreme Court.of tbe State will make order and decree in tbe case to conform to tbe ruliug of tbe Supreme Court of tbe United States on tbe plea of prescription.
Appeal from the Fourth District Court, parish of Orleans.
Théard, J. Elmore & King, for plaintiffs and appellants on writ of error.
Kace, Hosier & E. T. MerrieJc and E. W. Huntington, for defendants.

Opinion:
Ludeling, C. J.
This is an action upon a promissory note. The defendants pleaded the prescription of five years.
The note fell due on-the thirteenth March, 1861, and the citations were served on the defendants on the eighteenth day of April, 1866.
More than five years having elapsed, after the maturity of the note, before the citations were served on the defendants, the plea of prescription must be sustained. C. C. 3494, 3505; Rabel v. Pourciau, 20 An. 131, and Smith v. Stewart, 21 An.
It is therefore adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed, and that the appellants pay the costs of the appeal.
Decision after the Case was Demanded hy the Supreme Court of the United States to the Supreme Court of the State.
Wyly,' J.
In conformity to the decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, to which conn, this case was removed on writ of error, it is ordered that the judgment of this court, heretofore rendered herein, be set aside, and it is now ordered that the exception of prescription be overruled.
On tiie Merits.
From the evidence the case is clearly made out for the plaintiffs, as far as the amount of the note, to wit: $3226 24. As to the account, its correctness is not satisfactorily established by the evidence.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be annulled, and that the plaintiffs recover judgment against the defendants in solido for $3226 24, with five per cent, interest thereon from thirteenth March, 1861, and costs of both courts.