Case Name: Louis Lemunier vs. Martha McCearly and Husband
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1885-03
Citations: 37 La. Ann. 133
Docket Number: No. 9395
Parties: Louis Lemunier vs. Martha McCearly and Husband.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 133–137

Head Matter:
No. 9395.
Louis Lemunier vs. Martha McCearly and Husband.
"Where a marriage is dissolved by divorce, the custody of the child or children of the marriage is retained by the party obtaining the divorce, and it is not necessary that such custody should be specially awarded by the judgment.
And, where the wife obtains the divorce, she does not forfeit such custody by marrying again without being continued in she same by the advice of a family meeting.
A tutor or tutrix cannot be appointed to a minor child when both parents are living, though the marriage be dissolved by divorce.
A judgment rendered in chambers in a habeas corpus proceeding, instituted by the father of the child after divorce, directed against the mother obtaining the divorce, making her care of the child conditional, cannot be invoked as res adjuclicata in a subsequent suit where additional issues are involved, when it appears that no cause for the restitution of her authority over or care of the child anv longer exists.
APPEAL from the Ninth District Court for the Parish of Concordia. Young, J.
J. V. Luce and Steele & Garrett for Plaintiff and Appellee.
James G. Leach for Defendant and Appellant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
On Motion to Dismiss.
Todd, J.
This motion is on the ground that the appeal is taken by Mrs. McCearly alone without, the authorization of her husband in the court.
Both husband and wife were joined in the suit, and jointly answered in the lower court. The. wife, has appealed.
In the case of Hill & Co., vs. Trippelt and wife, 10 Ann., 554, exactly similar in the respects mentioned to the present one, it was held, (quoting): " That the defendants having been both joined in this suit by plaintiffs and appellees, and having both appeared and defended the same, the authorization of the husband to the wife to take the appeal (which was by motion) must be inferred."
We think this ruling correct, and the motion to dismiss is therefore denied.