Case Name: Mrs. M. V. DeLesdernier vs. H. J. DeLesdernier, Her Husband
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1893-12
Citations: 45 La. Ann. 1364
Docket Number: No. 11,281
Parties: Mrs. M. V. DeLesdernier vs. H. J. DeLesdernier, Her Husband.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 1364–1367

Head Matter:
No. 11,281.
Mrs. M. V. DeLesdernier vs. H. J. DeLesdernier, Her Husband.
When a husband appeals from a judgment rendered against him in favor of his wife for a separation from bed and board, and for $1600 for paraphernal funds belonging to her, converted to his own use, the wife is not entitled to have the appeal dismissed quoad the moneyed judgment as being below the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
A separation from bed and board carries with it a separation of property. A moneyed demand accompanying an action for such separation is an incident of the main action, and becomes inseparably connected with it as so brought. Repeated acts of drunkenness, followed by occasional spells of sobriety and moderate drinking, with the habit of drinking so fixed that temptation to drink can not be resisted, will constitute habitual drunkenness within the meaning of Art. 128 of the Civil Code. And if it is of such nature as to render the living together oí the spouses insupportable, the complaining party is entitled to a decree of separation from bed and board.
Notes given by the husband to the wile for her paraphernal funds used by him are-admissible to prove the indebtedness of the husband to the wife.
The husband is bound to support the marriage charges, and the wife can only be called to contribute one-half of the income of herparaphernal effects, of which she retains the administration.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. King, J.
K. Rivers Richardson for Plaintiff and Appellee.
Defendant in propria persona.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Nicholls, C. J.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for a separation from bed and board, and for a moneyed judgment for the sum of' $1610 for paraphernal funds of hers which her husband had received and converted to his own separate use and benefit.
The district judge rendered judgment in her favor in conformity to the prayer of the petition.
The defendant appealed, and the plaintiff has filed in this court a. motion to dismiss the appeal in so far as it concerns the moneyed judgment on the ground that it is below our constitutional jurisdiction as to amount.
Separation from bed and board carries with it separation of goods and effects. C. O. 155.
When the plaintiff suing for a separation from bed and board asked for a separation of property and for judgment for moneys received by the defendant during the marriage belonging to her and converted by him the action was an entirety, the demand and prayer for aseparation of property and for a moneyed judgment for a specific amount being merely an incident of the suit, with which it is now inseparably connected.
As matters stand the action is of the nature of a mixed action, where the principal demand carries its incidental demand along with it, as does, for instance, a petitory action, when it is accompanied by a demand for fruits and revenues.
There is no analogy between this case and that of Favrot vs. Baton Rouge, 38 An. 230.
In that case we dismissed no appeal, but limited our inquiries on appeal to the single issue which the Constitution directed us to consider in such matters. The whole case was before us on a single special issue. When we disposed of that our duty under the Constitution ended.
In the case at bar there is a case before us properly and legally within our jurisdiction on a main demand with an incidental demand properly attached to it by appellee — both having been decided by the district judge in one and the same judgment, and incapable of being separated from each other on appeal.
The motion for the dismissal is not well taken and the application is denied.