
    Samuel R. Bell v. George Elliott.
    Suit on a promissory note. Plea, prescription. Plaintiff had brought suit previously; was called and not appearing, was nonsuited. By the Court: In such a case, at least when unex. lained, the Article 3485, C. 0. applies, and the interruption is considered as not having occurred.
    Appeal from the District Court, Parish of St. Mary, YoorMes, J.
    
      Brent & Balcer and Maslcell, for plaintiff and appellant.
    
      J. B. Lea, for defendant.
   Slidell, 0. J.

The note is prescribed unless prescription has been interrupted. The only interruption asserted is the former suit against the defendant upon the same note. But the plaintiif then was called and not appearing, was nonsuited. In such a case, at least when unexplained, the Article 8486, 0. 0., applies, and the interruption is considered as not having occurred. There is an attempt to explain the plaintiff’s failure to appear, but it is loose and defective. It does not appear that the plaintiff had used diligence, or was taken by surprise.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  