Case Name: McCUBBIN v. HUTCHINGS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-03-27
Citations: 150 La. 949
Docket Number: No. 24370
Parties: McCUBBIN v. HUTCHINGS.
Judges: Justices O’NIELL, LAND, and BAKER, dissent from the refusal of a rehearing.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 949–949

Head Matter:
(91 South. 350)
No. 24370.
McCUBBIN v. HUTCHINGS.
(March 6, 1922.
Rehearing Denied March 27, 1922.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staf.)
Divorce &wkey;sl72 — Decisions in two prior .suits between same parties on same facts and same ground held conclusive.
In. a suit for divorce under Act No. 269 of 1916, on the ground that parties had been living separate and apart continuously for .a period of seven years, where two prior cases between the same parties on the same facts and on the same ground had been dismissed, and no appeal taken, the result of the former suits is conclusive in the present suit.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Porter Parker, Judge.
Suit by J. R. P. McCubbin against Stella Hutchings, his wife, for divorce. From judgment dismissing the suit, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Richard A. Dowling and Wm. R. Kinsella, both of New Orleans, for appellant.
Florence Loeber, of New Orleans, for ap~ l>ellee.

Opinion:
By Division A, composed of Chief Justice PROVOSTY and Justices OVERTON and LECHE.
PROVOSTY, C. J.
Plaintiff sues his wife for a divorce on the ground that they "have been living separate and apart continuously for a period, of seven years." Act No. 269, p. 557, of 1916.
Exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata were sustained below, and the suit was dismissed.
In the first former suit, based on precisely the same ground, an exception of no cause of action was sustained, and the suit was dismissed, and no appeal was taken.
In a second former precisely similar suit a similar exception was filed, coupled, as in the present case, with an exception of res judicata; and the exceptions were sustained, and the suit was dismissed; and no appeal was taken.
There must be the same result now. The two other suits were between the same parties, on 'the same facts. ,and on the same ground, and for the same object
Judgment, affirmed.
Rehearing refused by the WHOLE COURT.
Justices O'NIELL, LAND, and BAKER, dissent from the refusal of a rehearing.