No. 29847. Precedential Affirmed Processed

Rassat v. Vegas

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 30, 1931 · 138 So. 665

Cited by

State v. Frezal 278 So. 2d 64 La. 1973
State v. Whisenant 175 So. 2d 293 La. 1965
State v. Fulghum 138 So. 2d 569 La. 1962
Sliman Realty Corp. v. Sliman's Estate 73 So. 2d 447 La. 1954
State v. Alberts 19 So. 2d 98 La. 1944
Robin v. Walsh 17 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
Robin v. Walsh 16 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
Youngblood v. Davies 170 So. 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Youngblood v. Davies 169 So. 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Succession of Driscoll 125 La. 287

Opinion text

ST. PAUL, J. This is’ a suit to enjoin a foreclosure on a mortgage.’ The trial judge refused to dissolve the injunction, and the plaintiff in the foreclosure proceedings has appealed. The note on which the foreclosure proceedings is based is prescribed on its face. The plaintiff attempted to show the interruption of■ prescription by producing a personal letter signed by the deceased on whose note the foreclosure is being sought, which letter is addressed to the plaintiff in this case and contains the following statement: “Enclose please receive check for $500.” And he attempted to show by parol evidence that the check therein referred to was a payment made on the note herein invólved. The trial judge refused to admit parol testimony under the provisions of article 2278. of the Civil Code, reading as follows: “Art. 2278 Parol Evidence Shall Not Be Received: * * * “2. To prove acknowledgment or promise of a party deceased, to pay any debt or liability, in order to take such debt or liability out of prescription, or to revive the same after prescription has run or been eompletg¿[ Ht * # *) See, also, Succession of Driscoll, 125 La. 287 , 51 So. 200 , and authorities there cited. ■■ We think the trial judge ruled correctly. The letter herein' above quoted does not pur-' port to be an acknowledgment of any debt' whatsoever, and hence parol evidence was inadmissible to show that it .was such in fact and had reference to the note herein foreclosed upon. Decree. For the reasons assigned, the judgment herein appealed from is affirmed.