107 So. 708 | La. | 1926
The question in this case is whether the district court in Lafourche parish has jurisdiction of a suit to interdict a woman residing in that parish, but whose husband has his domicile elsewhere. She was born in Lafourche parish 25 years ago, and has resided there, with her parents, ever since. She was never of sound mind, according to the testimony of her brother, which is not denied; but that, of course, relates *954 to the merits of the case, which has not been tried.
On the 8th of June, last year, Miss Maud Lepine, defendant in this interdiction suit, went to New Orleans, and there, without the consent or knowledge of her parents, and very much to their sorrow, married one Joseph L. Boudreaux, whose domicile was in New Orleans. She did not go to Boudreaux's place of residence or establish a matrimonial domicile in New Orleans. That evening, a few hours after the ceremony, Boudreaux called up his wife's mother, at a hotel in New Orleans, and told her of the marriage. She requested Boudreaux to bring her daughter to the hotel and talk over the matter. He consented, and, with a man and woman who had served as witnesses at the marriage, he took his wife over to the hotel to greet her mother. The mother requested that her husband, who was at the hotel, be not informed of his daughter's marriage, because he was ill and she feared that he would be so shocked that his life would be endangered. She requested also that Boudreaux allow her daughter to remain with her that night and call for her in the morning. He consented but when he called at the hotel in the morning he was informed by the hotel clerk that the Lepines had checked out. Surmising that they had taken his wife back to Lafourche parish in their automobile, via the Walnut Street ferry, he drove immediately to the ferry landing, where he overtook the Lepine car awaiting the ferry. In the car were his wife and her mother and father and brother, and a friend of the family from Lafourche parish. They forbade Boudreaux to communicate with his wife, and persuaded him, under promise that he might see her later, to allow her to return with them to her home in Lafourche. Six weeks later her parents and brother filed this suit in Lafourche parish to have her interdicted. She did not answer or file a plea to the suit, but the curator appointed to represent *955 her excepted to the jurisdiction of the court, and Boudreaux intervened and joined in the plea. Having heard evidence on the plea, the judge overruled it, and the curator and Boudreaux are applying for writs of certiorari and prohibition.
The relators rely upon article
We agree with the learned counsel for relators that the words "domicile" and "residence" are used as if they were synonymous in article
"A suit for interdiction must be brought at the actual domicile, the domicilium habitationis, *956 of the defendant, not at his merely legal or constructive domicile."
The ruling of the district judge in this case is in accord with other provisions of the Civil Code and Code of Practice. Articles
*957"Where a party has removed from one parish into another, and has acted in the latter parish in such a manner as to manifest sufficiently his intention to change his domicile, but has not made a formal declaration to that effect, if a year has not elapsed since his removal, it is optional with a party desiring to sue him to bring the suit in either parish.
"If a person wishes to protect himself from being sued in the parish from which he removes, he should make an express declaration of his intention to change his domicile."
Miss Maud Lepine, of course, did not register a declaration of intention to change her domicile from Lafourche parish to the parish of Orleans, in the way prescribed by article
The relief prayed for by the relators is denied, and the ruling of the district judge, overruling the plea to his jurisdiction, is affirmed, at the cost of the relators.