Newman v. Eldridge
Citations
- 107 La. 315
Syllabus
<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>•1. The prescription to be applied, in any given case, is that established by the law of the forum, and the prescription ordinarily applicable to judgments in this State is ten years, under C. C. 3544. An exception to this rule is established by R. S. 2808, which provides that, where a judgment has been rendered in another State, between parties there residing, and has become barred by the law of such State, and the judgment debtor has thereafter come to Louisiana, the prescription established by the law of the State a quo will be applied to such judgment in this State. But, where the judgment debtor comes to this State before the judgment against him is prescribed by the law of the State in which it was rendered, and is here sued on such judgment, the case is not within the exception, and the only prescription to be applied is that established by Article 3544 of the Civil Code. And where the action on the judgment is begun and citation is served wii — n ten years from the rendition of said judgment, the prescription so established is interrupted.</p> <p>2. Under the Revised Code of Mississippi of 1880, a writ of attachment commands the sheriff, not only to seize the effects of the defendant, but to summon the defendant, if he can be found; and, where the return shows that the defendant has been summoned, no further evidence to that effect is required to enable the plaintiff, who obtains a personal judgment upon such summon, to maintain an action in this State upon the judgment ro obtained.</p> <p>8. But where the writ commands the sheriff to summon the firm of A & B (which is composed of A and B), and the return shows that A & B have been summoned, such evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion that C, a member of A, B & Co. (a firm which had succeeded the firm of A & B), has also been summoned; and hence, an action against “C” cannot be successfully maintained in the courts of this State upon a judgment against “C,” where the record co
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that the Pereira Court rejected the two-step approach
- defendant did not satisfy Section 1326(d)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe, Provosty, Takes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.