
    No. 1724.
    J. & H. Auchincloss v. Theo. Frois & Co.
    By the act of Congress of June 11,1864, the preseription of actions was suspended between citizens of the adhering States and those of the so-called Confederate States. A claim held by a resident of the State of Now York, an adhering State, against a citizen of Louisiana, a seceding State, was not therefore affected by tbe prescription enacted by the latter State during the time of such suspension. But in computing the time in which such obligations or claims aro prescribed, th© timo during which the war continued must be deducted from tho estimate, and the remainder must alone be counted.
    Appeal from the Third District Court, parish of Orleans. Emerson,, J.
    
      J. W. Ericlcell and E. & H. ITarr, for plaintiffs and appellees. J. L. Tissot, for defendants and appellants.
   Howell, J.

This suit was instituted in December, 1866, by plaintiffs, the holders, who resided during the war and since in the city of, New York, on four promissory notes made in said city, in March, 1860, payable respectively in eight and nine months by the defendants, residents of New Orleans, who pleaded the prescription of five years. To this plea the plaintiffs successfully oppose the act of Congress of June 11, 1864, in relation to the limitation of actions in certain cases (13 Statutes at Large 123), and the decision in the case of Stewart v. Kahn, 11 Wallace 493, carried up from this court, as suspending the prescription in this class of cases.

We take this occasion to remark that in the case of Stewart v. Kahn, the above act of 'Congress was not invoked in this court until application was made for a rehearing, and by our jurisprudence points not raised on the trial will not be considered on application for a rehearing-. It follows, therefore, that the United States Supreme Court -overruled a decision of this court on a point which had never been presented to us in. a manner that we could pass on it.

Judgment affirmed.  