Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 La. Ann. 179

Bernstein v. Ricks

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided March 15, 1869

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1869-03-15

<p>' The interruption of prescription may be proved by parol testimony,</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1925

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Wyly, J.

¶1The defendant has appealed from a judgment recovered against him by-plaintiff on a note which matured second June, 1861. The citation was not served till twentieth June, 1866. The defense is the prescription of five years.

¶2Plaintiff introduced parol testimony to prove an interruption of prescription, and the defendant took a bill of exceptions thereto. The evidence was properly received. The acknowledgment of a debt before prescription accrues can be established by parol evidence. The evidence is sufficient to satisfy us that prescription was interrupted, and that the plea is not well taken. It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be affirmed with costs.

/21/laann/179 · .json · Public domain