Case Name: A. Brown & Co. v. J. T. McFarland
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1867-05
Citations: 19 La. Ann. 255
Docket Number: No. 800
Parties: A. Brown & Co. v. J. T. McFarland.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
No. 800.
A. Brown & Co. v. J. T. McFarland.
In a suit on an open account, the dofence is the prescription of three years, and the evidence shows an acknowledgment and promise to pay several months after the account became due: 2Zcld—tThat this promise works an interruption of prescription from the date of the account to the date of the promise, and it only begins to run again from the date of the promise.
A PPEAL from the Third District Court of New Orleans, Fellowes, J.
Geo. L. Bright, for plaintiffs and appellees.
J. IS. Van Balsón, for defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
Tadiaeerro, J.
The plaintiffs sue the defendant for $765 18, with interest from April 8th, 1862, at five per cent, per annum, the value, as they allege, of labor performed for his benefit, in sawing up a lot of timber into staves. This claim is presented in the form of a running account from early in February, 1862, to the 8th of April of tho same year. The answer contains a general denial. Defendant pleads in bar of this claim the prescription of three years. Judgment was rendered in the Court below in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendant has appealed. -It is in proof that defendant, when called on near the end of the year 1862, to pay the account, made no objection to it, but promised to pay it as soon as he got money from a customer for making cisterns. This would seem to bar the prescription of three years, as the last item of the account is dated 8th of April, 1862, and suit was filed 29th of May, 1865, and citation served on the 31st of the same month and year. But the prescription of three years does not apply in the present case. By reference to the account in the record, it is seen that the charges are for certain specific work performed at different periods. There was no continuity in the services supplied. 13 An. 160. 11 An. 653.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the lower Court be affirmed, with costs in both courts.