
    No. 3405.
    Spearing & Co. v. Succession of J. W. Zacharie.
    The plea of prescription is set up against the suit of plaintiffs based upon the following instrument: “hTew Orleans, June 3, 1862. Due Messrs. Spearing & Co. six thousand dollars in current funds, subject to their draft or drafts, at not less than sixty days after sight.”
    This instrument is virtually an unconditional promise to pay a specific sum in current funds sixty days after demand. It contains substantially the elements of a promissory note. Therefore the action is barred by the prescription of five years,
    Appeal from the Second District Court, parish of Orleans. Btmigneaud, J.
    
      Ruddeelcee & Upton, for plaintiffs and appellants. James Lmgam, for defendant and appellee.
   Wyly, J.

This suit is based on the following instrument:

“New Orleans, June 3, 1862.

“Due Messrs. Spearing & Co. six thousand dollars in current funds, subject to their draft or drafts at not less than sixty days after sight.

“J. W. ZACHARIE,

$6000. “ pp. Robert Jump.”

The court sustained the plea of prescription of five years and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal. The question is, is the above instrument a promissory note 9 If so, the action is barred by prescription. It is an acknowledgment of an indebtedness of a specific sum, subject to (or payable), on payee’s draft or drafts, at not less than sixty days after sight. It is virtually an unconditional promise to pay a specific sum in current funds sixty days after demand.

In our opinion it contains substantially the elements of a promissory note. 22 An. 28; Parsons on Notes and Bills, chapter 2, pages 23-24.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment herein be affirmed with costs.  