
    HAMPTON ET AL. VS. BARRETT.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OP THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, JUDGE BUCHANAN PRESIDING.
    Where the purchaser stipulated to pay interest' annually, on the price of R plantation, and there is no evidence to justify him in withholding payment, he can only be relieved by demanding the deposit of the price.
    
    This is an action for two years arrear of interest, due by the defendant on the price of a sugar plantation. See the case in 9 Louisiana Reports, 336.
    On the return of the cause to the District Court, the defendant filed his answer, averring, that this case cannot be tried until the final determination of a suit in the United States District Court, between the same parties, for the two previous instalments of interest due on the same debt; that in that defence he has pleaded want of title in the vendor, disturbance by suits and danger of eviction, prayed for a rescission of the sale, &c. Some other matters were set up in defence, but there was no testimony produced on the (rial on the part of the defendant.
    The district judge gave judgment for the plaintiffs for the several sums claimed by them, with legal interest thereon, and the defendant appealed.
    
      Preston, for the plaintiffs.
    
      L. Peirce, contra.
    
   Eustis, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action for arrears of interest, due on the price of a plantation, sold by the plaintiff’s ancestor. The interest was payable annually throughout the term, on every first day of January. There is no evidence before us which would justify the defendant in withholding the payment of the interest. If he wished to have been relieved from the payment, he ought to have demanded the deposit of the price, according .to the provisions in article 3537 of the Louisiana Code.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.  