Court Opinion

ID: 9669854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:10:03.4949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:00.650026
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
The application for rehearing is based on an allegation that the judgment rendered is contrary to the law and the evidence and also on the proposition that it improperly allowed the demand made by the wife for attorney’s fees and increased the amount awarded; the contention on the latter proposition being that the wife is not en*1105titled to recover the fee in her own name, for the reason that she cannot sue the husband during the community to recover a debt.
The facts in the case have been thoroughly reconsidered and we find that the judgment correctly dismissed the demand for divorce which carried with it the rejection of the demand for a separation of the community.
On the question of attorney’s fees the contention presented may technically have some merit but as it was not raised in the lower court, nor contested in this court, we will not, therefore, consider it when it is presented for the first time in this application for rehearing. See State ex rel. Murtagh v. Department of City Civil Service et al., 215 La. 1007, 42 So.2d 65, on rehearing.
Rehearing denied.