
    No. 796.
    Succession of B. F. Pearce.
    The mere mention of a claim of a creditor upon a previsional account of an administrator, without a prayer by him for authority to pay it, and without exhibition of funds to be distributed, is not that acknowledgment of the claim which the law requires, nor its equivalent, and will not interrupt prescription.
    Sue. of Winn referred to is in 30 La. Ann. 702.
    Appeal from the Parish Court of Franklin. Bine, J.
    
      Wells & Ellis for Administratrix. Elam and Boatner for Opponent Appellant.
   Egan, J.

This case comes before us on the appeal of L. Tititer, who claims to be a creditor of the succession, a fact which is denied by the administrator, who also pleaded the prescription of ñve and fen years to the demand of opponent.

The only evidence of the existence, character, and amount of opponent’s claim is that is what is termed a provisional account filed by a former administrator on which there figures an item in this language: L. Tititer % (ordinary) $536.82. The administrator did not pretend to have paid, and ask to be allowed this item, nor were there any funds distributed or to distribute, as appears by the account. ,

This was then neither such an acknowledgment of the opponent’s claim as the law requires, either to make proof, or to avoid prescription, nor was it merged in the judgment of homologation under such circumstances. The law was fully stated by us on this subject, and the authorities reviewed in the succession of Walter O. Winn.

Judgment affirmed.  