29 La. Ann. 829
Decided November 15, 1877
Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1877-11-15
<p>Parol evidence is not admissible to prove an acknowledgment of, and promise to pay a debt, after the debt has become prescribed.,</p> <p>Prescription will not be suspended on account of the absence of the creditor from the domicile of the debtor, when it appears that it was in the power of the creditor to reach the domicile, and there bring suit in time to avoid the prescription of his debt.</p>
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““The appellee can not be permitted thus to revive an issue already decided against him.””
quoted by 1 later decision, including Greater New Orleans Homestead Ass'n v. Korner
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1877-11-15
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1941
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1On Motion to Dismiss.
¶2The opinion of the court was delivered by
¶3The motion'to dismiss this appeal, filed on November 9, 1877, is upon the identical ground taken in a former motion to dismiss, filed November 12,1875, which was overruled by our predecessors. The appellee can not be permitted thus to revive an issue already decided against him. The motion to dismiss is overruled.