Case Name: Johnson and Erwin et al. v. Peters and Millard
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1851-05
Citations: 6 La. Ann. 481
Docket Number: 
Parties: Johnson and Erwin et al. v. Peters and Millard.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 481–483

Head Matter:
Johnson and Erwin et al. v. Peters and Millard.
The defendants had contracted to furnish their notes, payable at one, two, three, four and five years, but did not do so, and the plaintiffs, after the lapse of twelve years, brought suit against them. Held: that the action was barred by prescription.
APPEAL from the Third District Court of "New Orleans, Kennedy, J.
In this case the judgment of the district court was as follows: “This is strictly a personal action. C. P. art. 3. The defendants oppose to it the prescription of five and ten years.
“Personal actions, in general, are prescribed by ten years. C. C. 3508. Actions on negotiable notes, by five years. Art. 3505. The obligation of the defendants, contracted in 1837, was to furnish negotiable notes, for a certain deficiency to be determined by a future event, all payable before the year 1843. The deficiency was ascertained before the end of 1837.
“Prior to the period fixed for the maturity of the notes, the plaintiffs’ right, if any they had, against the defendants, was limited to an action to compel them to furnish their notes according to contract; the alternative right of rescinding the contract is not now in question. After the period of maturity, an action to compel the furnishing of notes past due would have been as absurd as unnecessary, for the right to exact the amounts that would then have been due on the notes, if they had been furnished, was perfect. At all events, the right to institute such an action is barred in ten years; and more than twelve had elapsed froip the time the deficiency was ascertained, when this suit was brought. On the other hand, more than five years had also elapsed since the period at which the notes would have matured if they had been, furnished. The dófendants must be treated either as having executed their contract by giving notes, or as having refused so to execute it; they are entitled to one or the other of these two positions. The prescription of five years covers the' first position; the prescription of ten, the second; unless the plaintiffs can bring themselves within the exception “ contra non valentem,” &c. This was attempted by an argument that Erwin, the plaintiffs’ assignor, had no right of action until the mortgage on the square sold was raised. There are two answers to this: 1st. That Erwin was the party bound to raise the mortgage; and if he did not raise it sooner, it was his own fault. 2d. That the defendants could not have defended themselves, on that ground, in an action for a specific performance, for the reason that the raising of the mortgage was not made a condition precedent to the furnishing of any of the notes, nor to the payment of any of them, except the notes amounting to about $100,000, which were, by agreement, to remain on deposit with the notaiy. These notes, it will be observed by reference to the auctioneer’s proces verbal, were the notes to be furnished by the purchasers at the sale, in payment of the price of adjudication. The object of this special deposit to double the amount of the mortgage, was clearly to make the parties safe in executing the contract in all its other parts, and to leave them no legal excuse for backing out; and the security was ample.
“For the reasons assigned in'the written opinion of the court, this day delivered and on file, it is adjudged and decreed, that the peremptory exception filed by the defendants be maintained, and that the plaintiffs’ petition be dismissed, with costs.”
Thomas and Snyder, for plaintiffs.
H. Lockett, for defendants.

Opinion:
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Slidell, J.
We concur with the district judge in the opinion that the defendants are protected by prescription.
It is therefore decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, with costs.