
    No. 1613.
    Payne & Harrison, in liquidation, v. Geo. Douglass.
    Where promissory notes are prescribed on their face, the plea of prescription must prevail, nobwith* standing it is shown that ilie holder was prevented from bringing suit for several years on account of the late war, unless it is shown that suit could not have been brought at the time or prior to the time that prescription was acquired.
    The doctrine in the case of Rabel v. Pourciau (ante page 131) reaffirmed.
    Appeal from the District Court, Parish of Tensas, Farrar, J.
    
      Hynes & Gordon, for plaintiffs and appellees.
    
      Aroni <& Collier, for defendant and appellant.
    
      Brief of plaintiffs and appellees.
    
    There is nothing in this case to sustain tbe plea of prescription, on which defendant alone relies under the recent rulings of this honorable court.
    There have been no laches, no neglect, no unnecessary delay on the part of plaintiffs'.
    The President’s proclamation of peace, which is the only authoratative point from which- to count the renewal of intercourse, is dated April 2d, 1866. _ _ .
    _ _ The earliest possible date at which the parties plaintiffs could avail themselves of this removal was taken advantage of, and their petition was on- file in parish of Tensas, on the 7th of the same month, while the general order, in which the proclamation was promulgated, was dated April 16th, 1866.
    The defendants and appellants, in their pleadings recognize and claim a five years’ suspension of intercourse, dating from April, 1861.' Record, page 9.
    It may be proper to suggest to the Court, that should the maturity oí the four later notes, to-wit: April 12th, 1861, render the plea of prescription valid as against them, then that the account current is opened by the pleadings of defendant, the prescription of which at three years, from June 4th, 1861, say June 4th, 1864, was at a time at which certainly the doctrine of “ contra non valentem■ agere non curntprcescrwtio” would be in full force, and that all due and indeed extraordinary*diligence has been exhibited in the pressing this claim at the moment of the promulgation of peace.
    We cite for the convenience of the Court, the well known-laws of Congress, viz: Act of July 2d, 1864, section 5, prohibiting intercourse between the portions of a loyal State with those under control of the insurgents. Page 376, Acts of 1864.
    And the Acis of June, 11, 1864, “in relation- to the limitations of actions in'certain cases,” (page 123, Acts of 1864,) by which “the time during which such person shall so be beyond the reach of legal process shall not be deemed or taken as any part of the time limited by law for the commencement of such action.”
   Hvatan, C. J.

Plaintiffs sued defendant on his six promissory notes. Two of them were payable in 1860, and four on the 15th April, 1861.

Defendant was cited to defend this action on 18th April, 1866, and he, in his answer, pleaded prescription of five years.

Five years having elapsed since the maturity of the notes, before defendant was cited, the plea of prescription must prevail, notwithstanding defendant has, in his pleadings, actually acknowledged that it was not posssible in consequence of the late rebellion for plaintiffs to institute suit on the notes for several years after their maturity.

See the case of Louis T. Rabel v. S. Pourciau, (ante page 131.)

The judgment of the District Court is in favor of plaintiffs. It must be reversed.

Let the judgment of the District Court be annulled, avoided and reversed. Let there be judgment in favor of defendant, and let plaintiffs pay the costs of suit.  