
    No. 979.
    Odile Segura vs. J. T. Labit et al.
    The jurisprudence of this State has established that the war did not interrupt prescription, and is adhered to on the principle of stare decisis.
    
    A suit against one solidary debtor operated an interruption of prescription as to his co-soiidary debtor during its pendency, but it began to run in favour of the latter from its termination by final judgment. The issuing of an execution upon the judgment did not interrupt prescription as to the co-debtor not sued.
    Appeal from the District Court for Vermillion. Mouton, J.
    
      King for Plaintiff. W. W. Edwards for Defendants Appellants.
   Spencer, J.,

delivered the opinion affirming the judgment.  