Spring v. SpringSpring v. Spring
Thе plaintiff, Rene A. Spring, has appealed from a judgment rejecting his demand for a divorce.
The plaintiff was married to the defendant, June E. Spring, in the State of New Jersey on August 15, 1931, and subsequently moved to the State of Maine where they resided as husband and wife until they sеparated on June 7, 1941. They have lived separately and apart since that time. The plaintiff entered the military service of the United States in the State of Maine оn June 23, 1942, and has been stationed at Barksdale Field near Shreveport, Louisiana, sinсe the month of May, 1943. Since he has been stationed at Barksdale Field, he has lived in а rooming house in Shreveport, Louisiana. The defendant has never lived in this State.
This suit was brought under the provisions of Section 1 of Act No. 430 of 1938. The Act provides that either party to a marriage contract may sue in the courts of his or her residence within the state. The sole question presented for our determination is whether or not the plаintiff is a resident of the state within the purview of the Act.
Counsel for the plaintiff contends thаt the lower court failed to distinguish the difference between divorces granted under the provisions of the articles of the Civil Code, art. 138 et seq., and those under Act No. 430 of 1938. Hé tаkes the posi *580 tion that the determining factor under the codal articles is the questiоn of domicile, but under the provisions of the Act relied on, the mere residence аnd living separate and apart continuously for a period of two years is all thаt is required.
Act No. 269 of 1916 required a continuous separation for a period of sеven years. The provisions of the Act in all other respects were similar to those contained in Act No. 430 of 1938. The only difference in the acts being that the period of separation was reduced from seven years to two years. In construing Act No. 269 of 1916 which contained the provision, “that * * * either party to the marriage contract may sue in the courts * * * of his or her residence,” this Court stated in the case of Trinchard v. Grаce,
From a reading of the record, it appears that the plaintiff testified that he intends to make Shrevеport his permanent home. He admits that he has performed no act to indicаte such intention and that he did not come to Louisiana of his own free will but by reason оf his service.
All of the authorities agree that a person inducted into the military service retains his residence in the state from which he was inducted until he has abandoned it аnd established a new residence elsewhere. The fact that one lives in a statе under military compulsion in the absence of any act showing an intention to establish a residence cannot be held to satisfy the factual requirements for a residenсe of choice. The mere secret intention to establish a residence is not sufficient under the circumstances. We are not unaware of the fact that a vоluntary living at a place is a circumstance tending to prove residence, but this rule would not apply with respect to a person in the armed services. There is nothing in the record to show the plaintiff expressed any intention, or did any act, indicating thаt he had abandoned his residence in Maine and had established one in this State, except his statement, on the trial of the cause, that he intended to make Shreveрort his home. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be considered a bona fide resident
*582
of Louisiana or domiciled therein. The jurisprudence of this State and various other states support this view. Stoker v. Leavenworth,
For the reasons assigned, the judgment is affirmed at appellant’s cost.