
    No. 43.
    N. McStea v. Boyd & Blanks.
    The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show an interruption where the note sued on is ' prescribed-on its tace, and ii-none, is shown the xilea, will be maintained.
    from the District Court., paijsh of Cafdvell. Cv(iflVfov$, J.
    IFrtde II. Hough, for plaintiff and appellee. J. & J?, Ray, fqr defendant and appellant.
   Howeix, J.

One of the defendant^, Frederic]* A. Blanks, has appealed from a judgment against h.iiij. and Iris, codefendant on three promissory notes, due respectively on thirteenth December, I860, first January and thirteenth. April, 1861, and against which they pleaded the prescription of five years. Citation was served on the appellant on the twenty-second September, 1866, more than five years after the maturity of each note and according to the settled jurisprudence and the law of this State, the plea is well taken. See act fifth March, 1852, p. 90, § 3; Smith v. Stewart, 21 A. 75; Rabel v. Pourcieau, 20 A. 131.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment herein against Frederick A. Blanks be reversed, that there be judgment in his favor on plaintiff’s demand, with costs in both courts.  