Case Name: Ar. Miltenberger v. J. Witherow, Curator
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1872-03
Citations: 24 La. Ann. 183
Docket Number: No. 3775
Parties: Ar. Miltenberger v. J. Witherow, Curator.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 183–184

Head Matter:
No. 3775.
Ar. Miltenberger v. J. Witherow, Curator.
The act of Congress of Juno, 1864, which suspended tho proscription of actions in cases where the creditor resided within tho limits of the adhering States and tho debtor resided within the limits of tho insurrectionary States, during the late war, does not apply to cases where the creditor and debtor both resided within tho limits of the insurrectionary States.
Prescription once acquired in favor of an estate can not bo waived by an acknowledgment of tho claim by the administrator.
from the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, parish of Madison. Hough, J.
Jacob O. Seale, for plaintiff and appellant. J$. T). Farrar, for defendant ’and apjiellee.

Opinion:
Howell, J.
The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment sustaining the plea of prescription to his action on an account for money furnished to Robt. Ramsey, deceased, to purchase plantation supplies and the commissions thereon from ninth August, 1861, to eleventh July, 1882. Ho relies upon the proof that in 1863 the debtor went to Texas whore he diedj that from tho month of March, 1863, to November, 1865, no suit could have been brought in the courts of Madison parish, tho residence of said Ramsey, up to the time of his going to Texas, and that one N. D. Coleman, as administrator, on the eighth November, 1866, wrote upon tho account the approval thereof to bo paid in due course of administration; and he also invokes the act of Congress, eleventh June, 1864, suspending prescription. This act of Congress can not apply, the residence of the parties being in this State, and as the evidence shows, within the Federal linos of occupation during the time. Admitting that N. D. Coloman was legally appointed tho administrator of Ramsey's succession, the account was prescribed at the time he acknowledged it, according to the established jurisprudence of this State, and ho had no power to waive proscription already acquired in favor of tho succession.
None of tho grounds urged by plaintiff can be accepted as interrupting or suspending tho prescription in this case.
Judgment affirmed.