
    L. & T. F. Shewell v. Raguet.
    The evidence of a fact, happening in a different country from that of the lex loci contractus,K must be tested by the rules of evidence in this State, -where the remedy is sought.
    So. the testimony of one witness, that a debt contracted in the State of Pennsylvania exceeding 500 dollars in amount, was acJcnoioledged by the debtor, in his presence, in Texas, is insufficient without some corroborating circumstances, to make proof of and establish the demand in a court 6f Louisiana. — 8 L. 218, and cases there noted.
    The pleasof prescription, and of a discharge, undor a protestation thatthe debtwas never due, do not amount to a waiver of the plea of the general issue.
    Appeal from the court of the first district.
    This is an action instituted in April, 1837, on an account of the defendant, contracted in Philadelphia, in August, 1832, amounting to $2767 80, with interest to first October, 1835, for goods and merchandise sold and delivered to him by the plaintiffs.
    The defendant pleaded a general denial, and prescription. He further averred, that in December, 1832, in the State of Ohio where he then resided, he was discharged from all his debts by a court of competent jurisdiction, according to the laws of Ohio; that the plaintiffs were made parties to said proceedings and are bound by it.
    Upon these pleadings and issues, the cause was tried.
    J. Hise, Esq., witness for plaintiffs,
    states that the account sued on was pat into his hands in 1836, when going to Texas, to present and collect. That he met the defendant soon after in Nacogdoches, and presented the account, which he acknowledged to he correct, and gave him a horse on account of it, that he afterwards sold for $100. The defendant did not hesitate to acknowledge the correctness of the account sued on.
    The district judge was of opinion that the plea of the general issue was waived by the pleas of prescription and a discharge under the insolvent laws of Ohio, which -he considered special pleas; that the proof was sufficient under these circumstances to establish plaintiff’s demand. There was jndg- [458] ment accordingly, and the defendant appealed.
    
      Ohinn for plaintiff.
    
      Preston contra.
   Maetin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant is sued on an account for goods and merchandise sold and delivered to him in the State of Pennsylvania; he being at the time a resident of the State of Ohio. He pleaded the general issue; prescription and a discharge from his debts under the insolvent laws of Ohio; and he is appellant from a judgment against him.

There has been no proof of the account administered, except the testimony of one witness, who deposes that being employed to collect this debt, he presented the aeeount to the defendant in Texas and was answered that it was correct and he received a horse valued at one hundred dollars in part payment.

The counsel for the appellees contends that the debt is sufficiently proved by one witness without any corroborating circumstances, because such proof suffices in the State of Pennsylvania, where the debt was contracted ; the laws of that State in this respect being in evidence; that if any corroborating circumstance is required, it results from the pleas of prescription and discharge, and indeed that these pleas are a waiver of tha general issue.

We are not ready to say that if the res gesta in Pennsylvania, was proved by a witness present at the time of the contract, such proof would not suffice. But we have before us evidence of a fact, which happened in the Republic of Texas, long after the contract. The case is not before us on evidence procured at the time the contract was made, according to the lex loci contractus. It must therefore be tested according to the rules of evidence in [469] this State. According to these there must he some corroborating circumstance to support the testimony of the witness. La. Oode, 2257.

We do not discover any corroborating circumstance in the plea of prescription ; which is, that the suit was not brought in due time. The discharge pleaded in this case is under a strong protestation, that the debt was never due, and the plea is not inconsistent with the non-existence of the debt. Neither of these pleas is a waiver of that of the general issue.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be annulled, avoided and reversed, and that there be a judgment of nonsuit against the plaintiffs, with costs in both courts.  