Case Name: Hugh Daspit vs. Louise Ehringer
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1880-12
Citations: 32 La. Ann. 1174
Docket Number: No. 7933
Parties: Hugh Daspit vs. Louise Ehringer.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 1174–1177

Head Matter:
No. 7933.
Hugh Daspit vs. Louise Ehringer.
In a suit for a (livores, tlie testimony of' both husband and wife is inadmissible, and consent cannot render its admission legal.
Defendant in the suit for a divorce, based upon, a .judgment of separation from bed and: board, may plead the nullity of that judgment, instead of appealing therefrom or attacking it in a direct action'of nullity.
Sec. 138, Bev. Sta., was not repealed by Act Bo. 76 of 1870.
EPEAL from the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans. Mglitor, J.
Cotton & Levy for Plaintiff and Appellee.
First — Suit for a final divorce upon a judgment of separation from bed and board, will be maintained where it is shown that there has been no reconciliation since date of judgment, and one year has-expired from date of rendition, nor is it necessary to aver or prove an effort for reconciliation.
Second — Art. 138 C. C. is not repealed by Sec. 2, of Act No. 122, of 1877. On the contrary, Sec. 1 of the Act expressly recognizes its existence and enforces its provisions, except so far as amended.
Third — A judgment rendered upon pleadings and evidence against the defendant, will not be opened upon the allegation that it was a con sent judgment, where the party did not appeal nor bring an action, to annul, though having full knowledge of its rendition for eighteen months.
Fourth — Ruling of judge a quo, excluding testimony,,was correct.
W. S. Benedict for Defendant and Appellant.
First — Where a consent judgment of separation from bed and board is urged as the basis for an action, it can, as between husband and' wife, be enquired into.
Second — The evidence of the husband, as the only witness to establish no reconciliation was had by him with his wife, is insufficient, as the law obliges him to make an effort toward a reconciliation with her.
Third — Evidence is admissible to prove the wife attempted a reconciliation with her husband.
Fourth — There has been no law since Act No. 122 of 1877, to authorize-a separation from bed and board between husband and wife.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
This is a suit for a divorce, based on a judgment of separation a mensa et ihoro, the lapse of one year since its rendition- and the absence of reconciliation.
The defendant excepted, that the petition disclosed no cause of action, in this, that it does not set forth, that the plaintiff ever attempted to effect a reconciliation.
The exception being overruled, the defendant pleaded the general issue and charged specially the invalidity of the judgment of separation.
On the trial, the plaintiff and the defendant were heard as witnesses, the former without, the latter notwithstanding, objection ; to the overruling of which a bill was reserved.
The defendant offered to introduce evidence to show the invalidity of the judgment of separation, but, upon objection, she was not allowed to do so, and a bill was retained to the refusal.
I. The exception of no cause of action was properly overruled. It is not necessary that, in a suit of this description, the plaintiff, who-obtained the judgment of separation, should allege that he has made advances for a reconciliation to his consort, who, by the judgment of separation, was found to have committed some reprehensible act. It was for the defendant to make an overture had she thought one-proper under the circumstances.