
    Wm. Berry v. R. M. Gaudy.
    Where a party lias removed from one parish into another, and has acted in tho latter parish in such a manner as to manifest sufficiently his intention to change liis domicil, but has not made a formal declaration to that effect, if a year lias not elapsed since his removal, it is optional with a party desiring to sue him to bring the suit in either parish.
    If a person wishes to protect himself from being sued in the parish from which he romovos, ho should make an express declaration of his intention to change lus domicil.
    APPEAL from tlie District Court of the Parish of Claiborne, Egan, J.
    
      Drew <& Kilpatrick, for plaintiff.
    
      John 'Young, for defendant and appellant.
   Vooriiies, J.

The only question presented for adjudication in this cause, is whether the defendant, who had removed from the parish of Claiborne to that of Bienville, could be sued at his former domicil.

Not a year had elapsed since his removal; but the defendant had done, in the latter parish, acts which manifested sufficiently his intention to change his domicil. He had not, however, made a formal declaration to that effect.

' It was consequently optional with the plaintiff to bring suit in either parish; the Articles of the Code of Practice 167 and 168 are clear upon this point. If the party defendant wished to protect himself from being sued in the parish of Claiborne, he should have made an express -declaration, as prescribed by law. C. C. 44.

Judgment affirmed.  