149 So. 296 | La. Ct. App. | 1933
Plaintiff sued for damages to his automobile caused by a collision with defendant's truck. He alleged the accident occurred on February 2, 1932. He filed this suit on February 1, 1933. Service was not made on defendant until February 23, 1933.
Defendant filed a plea of prescription of one year in bar of the suit, which plea of prescription was sustained by the lower court, and plaintiff has appealed to this court. The case was submitted here on briefs without argument.
Prior to the passage of Act No.
"Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana, That the filing of a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction shall interrupt all prescriptions affecting the cause of action therein sued upon, against all defendants, including minors and interdicts.
"That all laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith, be and the same are hereby repealed."
This act was approved by the Governor on July 7, 1932, and became effective before the filing of this suit on February 1, 1933.
The sole question is: Was Act No.
Defendant contends that for said act to be applicable to this suit it would have to be retroactive, and it cannot be unless expressly made so by the act itself, which is silent on this point. We think the prevailing jurisprudence of this state is contrary to the contentions of defendant.
"Laws of prescription, and those limiting the time within which actions may be brought, are retrospective in their operation." De Armas v. De Armas et al., 3 La. Ann. 526.
To the same ruling is Third Municipality v. Ursuline Nuns, 2 La. Ann. 611.
In Municipality No. 1 v. Wheeler, 10 La. Ann. 745, the court said: "However repugnant to logic and sound policy they may be, retrospective laws in civil matters do not violate the Constitution, unless they tend to divest vested rights or to impair the obligation of contracts. * * *"
In Barrow v. Wilson, 39 La. Ann. 403, 2 So. 809, 811, the Court said: "There is no question of the legislative power to pass such a statute, and, being a statute of prescription, it is legitimately retrospective, and operates on the title of defendants, at least from the date of the law."
In State v. Brossette et al.,
"Remedial statutes and statutes governing procedure have application to all actions brought subsequent to their promulgation. In this case the indictment was returned subsequent to the promulgation of Act No.
"`That prescription acts upon the remedy inter medias res, and takes effect at any stage of proceedings wherein the local statute is changed. * * *'"
Also see the case of Musick v. Central Carbon Co.,
Act No.
Defendant relies on the case of Sample v. Whitaker,
The judgment of the lower court is incorrect. It is therefore reversed, the plea of prescription is overruled, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings; costs of appeal to be paid by defendant, and costs on the merits to await the final determination of the case. *298