Case Name: ZAVAGLIA v. NOTARBARTOLO
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1915-05-10
Citations: 137 La. 722
Docket Number: No. 20920
Parties: ZAVAGLIA v. NOTARBARTOLO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 721–741

Head Matter:
(69 South. 152)
No. 20920.
ZAVAGLIA v. NOTARBARTOLO.
(May 10, 1915.
On the Merits, June 7, 1915-
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1915.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Appeal and Error <§=^381 — Appeal Bond —Stjeeicien ct — Determination .
Where the alleged grounds for dismissal are not patent on the face of the record, the Sufficiency or competency of the surety on an appeal bond must be determined by the judge of the court from which the appeal is taken.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Oent. Dig. §§ 2029-2035; Dec. Dig. &wkey;381.]
2. Appeal and Error &wkey;?381 — Appeal Bond —Recitals—Qualifications of Surety.
There is no statute of this state which requires that the qualifications of a surety on an appeal bond shall be recited in the instrument, or shown by documents thereto attached.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Oent. Dig. §§ 2029-2035; Dec. Dig. &wkey;> 381.]
3. Appeal and Error <&wkey;381 — Appeal Bond —Surety—Presumption.
The prima facie presumption is in favor of the sufficiency and competency of a surety accepted by the clerk of the district court in the discharge of the duties of his office.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Oent. Dig. §§ 2029-2035; Dec. Dig. i&wkey;> 381.]
On the Merits.
4. Divorce <&wkey;157 — Divorce and Separation from Bed and Board — Foreign Judgment — Jurisdiction—Separation.
The law (Act No. 25 of 1898) which authorizes a person against whom a judgment of separation from bed and board has been rendered to “apply to, and obtain from, the court that rendered the judgment” a judgment of final divorce (provided there has been no reconciliation within the required delay of two years) confers no authority upon a person against whom a judgment of separation from bed and board has been rendered by a court of another country to apply to, or obtain from, a court of this state a judgment of final divorce, predicated upon such foreign judgment; nor does it confer upon a court of this state jurisdition of a suit the declared purpose of which is to make effective and executory such foreign judgment, in order that, as a judgment of the state court, it may be made to serve as a basis for such final judgment of divorce.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Divorce, Cent. Dig. §§ 517, 528-531; Dec. Dig. &wkey;157.]
5. Divorce <&wkey;157, 326 — Divorce and Separation from Bed and Board — Judgment —Res Judicata — Separation.
If it were otherwise possible for this court to render a judgment, at the instance of a husband, decreeing a separation from bed and board, in favor of his wife, who has already obtained such a judgment against him in Italy, where they were both domiciled, and who is before the court protesting against such action, we should still be obliged to consider that a judgment by a court of the common domicile, determining the marital status of the parties thereto, is usually held to have the force of, if not to constitute, res judicata, and that the question so determined cannot, with propriety, at the instance of the party cast, be again determined by a court of another country, whether in the same, or another way. We should also be obliged to consider that, if it be the purpose of_ the husband (who seems so to declare) to obtain a judgment against himself, predicated upon the Italian judgment, which will serve as a basis for a judgment of final divorce, he is confronted with the_ difficulty that there must be read into the Italian judgment the condition, prescribed by the Italian law, that no final divorces are allowed in Italy, from which it follows _ that neither the Italian judgment of separation from bed and board, nor any such judgment predicated thereon by a court of this state, can be made to serve the purpose in question, since no judgment can be given, whether directly^ or indirectly, greater effect beyond than within the territorial jurisdiction of the court by which it is rendered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Divorce, Oent. Dig. §§ 517, 528-531, 827-830, 840; Dec. Dig. &wkey;157, 326.]
Appeal from Oivil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Fred. D. King, Judge.
Action by F. M. Zavaglia against N. Notarbartolo. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed and dismissed.
Howe, Fenner, Spencer & Cocke, of New Orleans, for appellant. Lazarus, Michel & Lazarus and David Sessler, all of New Orleans (Hannis Taylor, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
LAND, J.
A judgment of separation from bed and board rendered by a court in Italy in favor of the plaintiff was made executory by the decree of the court a qua, from which the defendant obtained an order of appeal to this court, and pursuant thereto filed an appeal bond in the sum of $250 with the National Surety Company, as surety.
No attempt was made in the court below to test the solvency or sufficiency of the surety, but the plaintiff and appellee has filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it does not appear on the face of the bond or the record that the said surety company was authorized to exe •cute the appeal bond in question, or to do business in the state of Louisiana, or that the persons signing said bond in the company's behalf were authorized so to do.
For answer to this contention, counsel for appellant contends that such objections should have been raised in the court below, and should not be considered by this court.
In Moffet v. Koch, 106 La. 371, 31 South. 40, the motion to dismiss the appeal was first tried in the district court, and renewed, in the Supreme Court, on the evidence brought up in a supplemental transcript.
In Eichorn v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., 114 La. 712, 38 South. 526, 3 Ann. Cas. 98, the rule to dismiss the appeal because the National Surety Company was not a legal and competent surety was first tried in the district court, and the plaintiff thereupon appealed.
It has been consistently held that the question of the sufficiency of the surety on an appeal bond must be determined by the judge of the court from which the appeal is taken. State ex rel. Garretson v. Judge, 17 La. 433; State ex rel. Peet v. Judge, 19 La. 174; Stanton v. Parker, 2 Rob. 550; Ex parte Barrett, 4 La. Ann. 236; Surget v. Stanton, 10 La. Ann. 318; Wood v. Harrell, 14 La. Ann. 61; State ex rel. Maury & Co. v. Judge, 20 La. Ann. 390; Allen Nugent & Co. v. Cary, 32 La. Ann. 1125 ; Weiser v. Blaese, 34 La. Ann. 838; and De Gruy v. Aikens & Co., 43 La. Ann. 538, 9 South. 749.
In the case of Benedict v. Pasley, 124 La. 593, 50 South. 591, this line of jurisprudence was recognized and applied.
Defendant and appellant filed in this court a certificate from the secretary of state and •other documents tending to show that the National Surety Company was duly authorized to transact business in the state of Louisiana, and that the bond in question was •executed by its duly authorized agents in this state.
Plaintiff and appellee moved the court to strike from the files said certificate and documents on the ground that new and original evidence is not admissible in the Supreme Court.
Appellee's contention in his reply brief is that the Supreme Court and district court have concurrent jurisdiction of motions to dismiss appeals when the incompetency or insufficiency of the surety appears on the face of the bond. We proceed to review the cases cited in support of this proposition.
In Wells v. Walker, 24 La. Ann. 131, the appeal was dismissed because the surety did not reside in the parish where the judgment appealed from was rendered. The opinion does not state how the fact of the nonresidence of the surety was shown.
In Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux, 45 La. Ann. 1126, 13 South. 805, an appeal bond was executed by the defendant in his individual capacity when the order of appeal was granted to him as administrator. In Barrow v. Clack, 45 La. Ann. 478, 12 South. 631, the coplaintiff of the appellant was held not to be a competent surety.
Pearce v. Haas, 122 La. 376, 47 South. 687, is to the same effect; and in Succession of Maloney, 124 La. 672, 50 South. 647, it was held that the wife was not a competent surety on the appeal bond of the husband.
In Pelletier v. State National Bank, 112 La. 564, 36 South. 592, the defect was in the amount of the appeal bond.
In all the cases cited supra, except the first, the grounds for dismissal were patent on the face of the record.
In the case at bar, the motion to dismiss avers that certain facts relating to the competency of the surety do not appear on the face of the bond or otherwise.
Plaintiff and appellee has cited no statute of this state which requires that all the qualifications of a surety on an appeal bond shall be recited in the instrument, or shown by documents thereto attached.
Such has never been the practice, but on the contrary objections to the qualifications of the surety have been raised by motion or rule in the court a qua, and evidence beard.
In the absence of all contrary evidence, it must be presumed that the clerk of the district court performed bis duty, and accepted a competent and sufficient surety on tbe appeal bond, after proper inquiry.
Motion to dismiss overruled.