Weaver v. Weaver
Weaver v. Weaver, 34 So. 438 (La. 1903).
Cited by
- Advocate Financial, LLC v. Lahatte 24 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
- Horton v. Mayeaux 931 So. 2d 338 La. 2006
- Lemalle v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 452 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
- Mitchell v. Windham 426 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
- Pickering v. Hibernia National Bank 306 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
- Sonnier v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 248 So. 2d 299 La. 1971
- Langston v. Willis 177 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
- Loomis v. Connecticut General Life Insurance 160 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
- Robinson v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 148 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
- Hearne v. Leonard Buick Co. 62 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
- Mitchell Ex Rel. Tart v. Louisiana Industrial Life Ins. 16 So. 2d 458 La. 1943
- Weinberger Sales Co. v. Truett 2 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Amy v. Berard 49 La. Ann. 897
Opinion text
BLANCHARD, J. This action was one for separation from bed and board. The wife, who is plaintiff, charges, in effect, that her husband has been guilty towards her of excesses and cruel treatment of such a nature as render their living together insupportable. She mentions particulars im her petition. The husband answers denying the ill-treatment complained of, and charges gross misconduct on part of the wife of such a nature as entitles him, in his belief, to a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii, for which he prays in reeonvention. There was judgment in favor of the plaintiff granting her the separation from bed and board prayed for, and rejecting the reconventional demand of the defendant. The latter appeals. Ruling — The conclusion reached, on examination of the testimony in this record, is that the wife’s conduct debars her from the relief she seeks. Amy v. Berard, 49 La. Ann. 897 , 22 South. 48 . And it is not thought that the evidence adduced in support of the reconventional demand of the defendant is, in all particulars, sufficient to warrant a final decree in his favor. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be avoided and reversed and that the demand of the plaintiff be rejected, while that of the husband, on his demand in reconvention, be dismissed as in case of nonsuit — costs of the appeal and those of the main demand in the court below to be paid by the plaintiff, those of the reconventional demand in the court below to be paid by the defendant husband.