Case Name: Succession of John Ducker
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1855-12
Citations: 10 La. Ann. 758
Docket Number: 
Parties: Succession of John Ducker.
Judges: with whom concurred Buchanan, X,
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 758–761

Head Matter:
Succession of John Ducker.
It is well settled, both by the Civil and Common Law, that a judgment gives rise to an action to enforce it. Whenever this action is brought, it is subject to the law of the forum, and the prescription of the forum alone will bar such action.
Anypaymentof a debt made by one who administers an estate both as Tutor and Curator, interrupts prescription of the debt, whether the payment be made in one capacity or the other.
A statute of Mississippi provides, that “judgment in any court of record of this State shall not be revived by scire facias; nor shall mvy action of debt be vnsMtuted thereon after the cxpwaMon of seven yecui'S next after the date of such judgment f etc. Voorhies, J., andBucnAUAN, J., (dissenting,) were of opinion that, under this statute, a judgment that could not be enforced in Mississippi, could not be enforced in this State. “ An action to enforce the payment of a judgment is undoubtedly the remedy given to the creditor by the law of the forum, but the faith, credit and effect to be given to such judgment must be considered as pertaining to or inherent to the right.”
PPEAL from the District Court of Concordia, Farrar, J.
ÍX Sage, for York.
Farrar and Clark, for opponents.
Stacey, for absent heirs.

Opinion:
Merrick, 0. J.
A majority of the court are of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court should not be disturbed, except so far as to amend the same by rejecting the payment of $2000 alleged to have been made to the Planters' Bank.
The principal contest has arisen out of the construction of the statute of Mississippi, which declares that no action of debt shall be instituted on a judgment after the expiration of seven years after the date of said judgment. It is contended in this court, on the one hand, that this statute bars the right, and consequently can be invoked everywhere; on the other hand, that it is but a statute of limitations, and bars the remedy only. We think the latter opinion is so well established by authority, in which our own courts and the Court of the United States concur, that it ought not to he disturbed by us. It is well settled, both by the Civil and the Common Law, that a judgment gives rise to an action to enforce it. Whenever this action.is brought, it is subject to the law of the forum, and the prescription of the forum alone will bar such action. 3 Zacharie, p. 373, No. 769: JDeseffeis de la chose jvgée; 2 Savigny, 246-248; 13 Peters' R., 324, 328; McElmoyle v. Cohen, 7 N. S.. 108 ; Union Cotton Co. v. Lobdell, 3 An., 220; Lacoste v. Benton, 7 An., 600 ; Bacon v. Dahlgreen, 7 An., 272; Taylor & Hadden v. Joor.
It appears that Gen. Sparrmo administered the estate, in his capacity both of tutor and curator. Many of his vouchers state that the money was received of him as tutor, others that it was received of him as tutor and curator, and others as curator only. Ashe had the capacity to administer the estate in both capaci-cities, a majority of the court think that any payment made by him on account of the estate interrupted prescription, and that the payment by him of the notes held by the Bank of the United States had the effect of interrupting prescription upon them.
We have been unable to discover any evidence of the payment of the $2000 to the Planters, Bank, and we are unanimously of the opinion that the judgment must be amended in this particular, as prayed for.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court, that the judgment of the lower court be so amended as to direct and order that H. D. Mandeville, John W. Walworth and the Montgomery trustees of the Planters' Bank of Mississippi he placed upon said tableau of distribution for their judgment of $3199 74, with 8 per cent, interest thereon per annum, from the Oth day of December, 1836, until paid, payable in the money of said Planters' Bank; and it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the lower court he, in all other respects, affirmed; and it is further ordered, that the cost of this appeal be divided equally between and paid by the succession of John Ditcher, Horatio B. Pennoch, S. W. Oákey and Maria Boulden.