Case Name: Wm. L. Hutchinson v. S. D. & H. Richardson
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1867-04
Citations: 19 La. Ann. 187
Docket Number: No. 1262
Parties: Wm. L. Hutchinson v. S. D. & H. Richardson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
No. 1262.
Wm. L. Hutchinson v. S. D. & H. Richardson.
The iacb of defendant, being in the Confedera be service, and thus avoiding citation, does not interrupt prescription.
A PPEAL from the District Court, Parish of St. Helena, Ellis, J.
■Tas. A. Williams, for plaintiff and appellee.
Ti. F. Russell, for defendant and appellant.
Reporter.-—This action was commenced in January, 1801, on ft promissory note which became due in January, 1859. Defendant pleaded (he proscription of five years. Plaintiff, in answer to this plea, produces testimony to show that defendant was in the Confederate army, and thus, by his own act, prevented the commencement of this action.
The testimony is materially as follows :
Witness Ellis says : “ I saw defendant in Camp Moore, in the latter part of 1861; he was captain of a company in the Ninth Louisiana Regiment. I know he was still in the service in 1862.”
WitnessWelslisayB : “Defendant, Hardy Richardson, was post-quartermaster from,the latter part of 1863 to the surrender, in 1865.”
It is admitted by defendants’counsel, that the Act of the Louisiana Legislature relative to proceedings against persons in the military or naval service of the State, or of the Confederate States, approved December 21st, 1861, was in force and recognized by the Courts as law, and as applying to this case.

Opinion:
Howei/d, J.
This is an action upon a promissory note, duo on 12th January, 1859, against which the prescription of five years is pleaded by H. Richardson, against whom alone judgment was rendered.
He accepted service of the petition on the 10th January, I860, about seven years after the maturity of the note sued on, and there is no legal evidence in the record showing an interruption or suspension of the prescription pleaded.
It is therefore ordered, that the judgment appealed from be reversed, and that there bo judgment in favor of defendant, Ilardy Richardson, with costs in both courts.