
    No. 2282.
    Carondelet Canal Navigation Company v. Widow De St. Romes.
    Tlio defendant can not bo permitted to question tbo validity of the claim on which a judgment has been rendered in a suit to revive it, the object of revival being only to interrupt the current of prescription. Revised statutes of 1870, section 2813.
    APPEAL from the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans.
    
      Cooley, J. C. Dnfour and S. D. Ogclen, for plaintiff and appellee.
    
      Charvet & Dupla» tier, for defendant and appellant.
   Ludeling, C. J.

This is an action to revive a judgment upder the, act of 1853.

The defendant avers that she was not legally cited, and that she never, signed, nor authorized any one to sign ior her, the obligation sued upon.

The record shows that she was legally cited. It is therefore unnecessary to decide whether, in an action of this kind, the irregularity of the original proceedings on account of a want of citation, can be-inquired into. The second grounds should have been urged and established beiore judgment.

The object >of this proceeding is merely to keep in force the judgment rendered in 1859 by interrupting prescription. Acts of 1853, Ray’s Revised Statutes, section 2813. The verity of the obligation sued on is established by the original judgment — it is res judicata.

' It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, with costs of appeal.

Mr. Associate Justice Howell recused.  