Case Name: CONDRAN v. BOUDREAUX
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1924-02-18
Citations: 155 La. 662
Docket Number: No. 24220
Parties: CONDRAN v. BOUDREAUX.
Judges: By Division B, composed of Justices DAW-KINS, LAND, and LECHE.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 662–664

Head Matter:
(99 South. 521)
No. 24220.
CONDRAN v. BOUDREAUX.
(Feb. 18, 1924.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Divorce <5=362(3) — District court held not to have jurisdiction of defendant in separation suit, where not domiciled in parish.
Where parties were married in Jefferson parish while the husband was a student in New Orleans, though having his home and domicile in La Fourche parish, and resided in New Orleans during the school months, but went to the husband’s home during vacations and finally went to another town, the district court for the parish of Orleans did not have jurisdiction of wife’s suit for separation; defendant not being domiciled therein.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Wynne G. Rogers, Judge.
Suit for separation from bed and board by Esther Condran against Sidney J. Boudreaux. An exception to the jurisdiction of the court was sustained, the suit was dismissed,. and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Paul L. Fourchy, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Howell, Wortham & Howell, of New Orleans, for appellee.
By Division B, composed of Justices DAW-KINS, LAND, and LECHE.

Opinion:
DAWKINS, J.
This is a suit for separation from bed and board on the ground of cruel treatment.
Defendant excepted to the jurisdiction of the lower court ratione person®. Evidence was adduced, and it was decided that defendant's domicile was in the parish of La Eourche. The plea was sustained, the suit dismissed, and plaintiff appeals.
Only a question of fact is involved. The parties were married in Jefferson parish while the defendant was a student of dentistry in Tuiané University, in this city, though having his home and domicile' in La Eourche, and plaintiff was living with hex-parents in.this city. They resided in New Orleans during school months for one or more sessions, but went to his home in vacation, and finally, after leaving the University, went back to Thibodaux.
Under these circumstances, we agree with the court below that defendant was not domiciled in the parish of Orleans.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.