4 La. Ann. 418 | La. | 1849
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
We think the plea of prescription was properly maintained. See Hatch v. Gilmore, 3 An., 508. Duncan v. Ford. Tyson v. McGill, 15 La. 145. The case of Boyle v. Mann, ante p. 170, is not in point. There the evidence was considered as authorizing the inference of a dishonest purpose, and that the debtor had departed from the United States with the avowed purpose of baffling his creditors. Besides, Mather appears to have lived in Mississippi from the date of the note to a period of five years subsequent to its maturity, and the plaintiff was aware of his residence.
We are also of opinion that the district judge did not err in refusing to consider the note as relieved from prescription, by the endorsement which appeared on it.
Judgment affirmed.