Case Name: STEVENS v. ALLEN
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1916-01-24
Citations: 139 La. 658
Docket Number: No. 20763
Parties: STEVENS v. ALLEN.
Judges: PROVOSTY and O’NIELL, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 658–682

Head Matter:
(71 South. 936)
No. 20763.
STEVENS v. ALLEN.
(Jan. 24, 1916.
On Rehearing, May 22, 1916.)
•(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Separation prom Bed and Board — Domicile op Parties.
Where the husband and wife were married in the state of New York, and the wife some 12 years later, refused to follow the husband to the state of Oregon, and the husband subsequently became a resident of the state of Louisiana, the wife continuing to reside in the state of New York, held, that the husband could not sue in the court of Louisiana for a separation from bed and board on the ground of the alleged abandonment in the state of New York, although the husband may have had a domicile of origin in the state of Louisiana. There can be no abandonment of the matrimonial domicile in this state where there has been no common dwelling.
Provosty and O’Niell, JJ., dissenting.
On Rehearing.
2. Divorce <@=>62(2, 6) — Domicile <@=j 4(1), 5 —Absence in Military Service — Husband and Wife — Grounds for Divorce — “Abandonment” — Jurisdiction.
A youth whose domicile is in Louisiana and who is appointed cadet in the military academy at West Point, and remains in the army until his voluntary retirement, after 30 years of continuous service, does not thereby forfeit such domicile, and the wife, whom he marries in another state, has no other domicile than his, and, save for just cause, can acquire no other and is bound to follow, and live with, him whithersoever he may choose to go and reside; and, in such case, where the wife, without just cause, refuses to accompany the husband to the station and temporary residence to which he is assigned by his superior officers, she is guilty of “abandonment,” within the meaning of our law, notwithstanding that she has never been within this state, and the husband, who shortly thereafter retires and establishes an actual residence in Louisiana, at the place of his original domicile, may bring suit in a court of such residence and domicile for separation a mensa et thoro, and summon the wife therein, by substituted service, to return to the matrimonial domicile so established, and such court is vested with jurisdiction in the premises, and may render judgment determining the marital status of the plaintiff, which judgment will be binding, at least, within the limits of this state, and, according to the views of this court, should be binding in other jurisdictions.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Divorce, Cent. Dig. §§ 200-202, 210, 220; Dee. Dig. <@=> 62(2, 6); Domicile, Cent. Dig. §§ 5-8, 10-23, 24-35; Dec. Dig. ¿=34(1), 5.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Abandonment.]
Land, J.,.dissenting.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; George H. Théard, Judge.
Action by Gustave W. S. Stevens against Grace Elizabeth Allen, his wife. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff: appeals.
Eeversed and remanded.
Howe, Fenner, Spencer & Cocke, of New Orleans, for appellant. J. M. Quintero, of New Orleans, curator ad hoc, for appellee.

Opinion:
LAND, J.
This is a suit for separation from bed and board on the ground of abandonment. The curator ad hoc, appointed to represent the defendant, excepted to the jurisdiction of the court upon the admitted fact that the wife had never been within the limits of the state of Louisiana. This exception was sustained, and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff has appealed.
Plaintiffs father, Gen. Walter H. Stevens, was an officer in the United States Army, who, in 1848 married plaintiff's mother in the state of Louisiana, and in 1861 resigned his office, and established his residence in the city of New Orleans. A short time thereafter Gen. Stevens entered the Confederate Army. It appears from the deposition of the widow of Gen. Stevens that, after the close of the Civil War, he went to Mexico for a time, but never changed his residence.
The plaintiff was born in the state of Virginia, but remained there only 7 months, and, when he attained the age of 19 years, was appointed as a cadet to the United States Military Academy of West Point from the state of Louisiana. Plaintiff, having graduated from said institution, entered the United States Army, and there remained continuously until March 1, 1913, when he retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel. Thereupon the plaintiff returned to New' Orleans, where he has been residing since March, 1913. Plaintiff alleges "that he has at all times retained his domicile in the city of New Orleans," but there is no allegation or proof of his actual residence in that city prior to the year 1913.
Plaintiff further alleges that in July, 1899, while stationed temporarily as an officer in the United States Army at Ft. Meyer, Va., he was married to the defendant in the city of Brooklyn, N. Y. Plaintiff further alleges that in November, 1912, he was stationed at Ft. Stevens, Or., and that his said wife refused without cause to accompany him to Ft. Stevens, although plaintiff went to Brooklyn at the time and lived there for several days with his wife and urged her to return with him. Plaintiff further alleges that his wife is now residing at 747 Quincy street in Brooklyn.
Defendant and the plaintiff were married in the city of Brooklyn in 1899. In July, 1912, she and her husband were living there together; and there is nothing to show that the defendant since her marriage has lived elsewhere. The alleged abandonment took place in the state of New York; and the defendant has been living separate and apart from her husband since November, 1912.
The question is whether the courts of Louisiana have jurisdiction to decree a separation from bed and board in a case of this kind. The judge a quo held that his court had no jurisdiction in the premises.
The curator ad hoc cites Heath v. Heath, 42 La. Ann. 437, 7 South. 540, which is on all fours with the case at bar, with the exception of plaintiff's claim of domicile of origin in the state of Louisiana. Plaintiff's complaint is not that his wife refused to return to the city of New Orleans, but that she refused to accompany him to his temporary residence in the state of Oregon. In Heath v. Heath, supra, the court said:
. "In this case the parties to the marriage never had a matrimonial domicile in this state, as the wife has never been here with her husband. There never has been a common dwelling here, and therefore the wife could not abandon it. Muller v. Hilton, 13 La. Ann. 1 [71 Am. Dec. 504]; Champon v. Champon, 40 La. Ann. 40 [3 South. 397]."
See, also, Nicholas v. Maddox, 52 La. Ann. 1493, 27 South. 966.
The matrimonial domicile of the parties was in Brooklyn.
The plaintiff's suit is based on the alleged abandonment of 1912, and he does not claim a separation from bed and board on the ground that, since the establishment of his residence in the city of New Orleans, he has invited his wife to live with him, and that she has refused to do so.
Judgment affirmed.
PROVOSTY and O'NIELL, JJ., dissent.