Court Opinion

ID: 7161554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 16:16:47.983866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:15:23.103351
License: Public Domain

ON the Merits.
It is shown that on the eleventh June, 1866, when Barrow renounced the prescription that had already acquired on the mortgage note held by De Boigne, the plaintiffs were judicial mortgage creditors. That waiver renewed the debt due by Barrow, but it did not revive the mortgage as to plaintiffs or to their prejudice. See Grayson v. Mayo, 2 An. 927; Succession of Kugler, 23 An. 455; Revised Code, articles 3466, 3379, 3285.
Judgment affirmed.