Case Name: SIMPSON vs. BURNETT
Court: Superior Court of Louisiana
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1812
Citations: 2 Mart. (o.s.) 243
Docket Number: 
Parties: SIMPSON vs. BURNETT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Martin (Louisiana Term Reports)
Volume: 2
Pages: 243–245

Head Matter:
SIMPSON vs. BURNETT.
The disability of the pl'f. can only be taken advantage of at the trial of the cause.
THE defendant had been held to bail upon the usual affidavit,
A rule was obtained to shew cause, why the order to hold to bail, should not be dissolved, upon the ground, that the defendant was an inhabi tant of the territory, residing out of the first superior court district.
Ellery, in support of the rule.
By the "Act " supplementary to an act, providing for the su"perior court going district," every suit begun against any residing landholder, shall originate before the judge of the parish in which said Iandholder resides. 1807, ch. 1, sect. 11. And with respect to all causes which are to be transferred to- the circuit courts, it is made the duty of the supe~ nor court to order, that such of those causes as shall yet be pending before it, when this act shall begin to be in force, shall be transferred to the respective circuit Courts of the circuit wherein the defendants reside. 31st sect. Every defendant, therefore, must be sued in the parish, or district, wherein he resides; and no process from this court can legally issue against the present defendant, who is a landholder, residing in the parish of Iber-vile, in the second superior court disthct If this suit had been pending in this court, at the time of passing the above act, it would have been the duty of the court to have transferred it to the second district, and this, it would appear, summarily, whenever the residence of the party defendant in that district, was made to appear; and not by a plea in abatement, whibh would have placed it on the trial list, there to wait its turn, and subject the parties to great expence and loss of timed Neither does it appear that in any cause thus pending when this act went into operation, the defendant was ever compelled to resort to this plea. The present defendant being in a similar situation, is entitled to a similar remedy; the date of the suit ought not exclude him from the benefit of it.

Opinion:
By the Court.
This objection is premature. The disability of the plaintiff can only be taken advantage of by a plea in abatement, or at the trial of the cause.
Rule discharged.