
    (90 South. 223)
    No. 23576.
    ROBERTS v. ROBERTS.
    (Nov. 28, 1921.)
    
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Divorce <&wkey;¡57 — Statute providing for final divorce on failure to become reconciled within year after separation, judgment held not to permit collateral attack on the .latter.
    Act No. 25 of 1898 provides that',' on separation from bed and board, there being no reconciliation within one year, the judgment shall become final, and application may be made for a final judgment of divorce, so that, on such application, such judgment cannot be attacked collaterally on the grounds of fraud in procuring and that a reconciliation was rendered impossible by the plaintiff. '
    Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Webster; J. N. Sandlin, Judge.
    Suit by Stephen L. Roberts against Mrs. Roena Roberts. Judgment for plaintiff for separation from bed and board, and defendant obtained orders of appeal, but did not perfect her appeal. More than a year later plaintiff petitioned for final divorce on the ground of no reconciliation, and, defendant having left the state, L. K. Watkins, one of her attorneys, was appointed curator and answered, and defendant filed an answer through other counsel. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Stewart & Stewart, of Minden, for appellant.
    Charles M. Roberts, of Minden, for appellee.
   PROVOSTY, J.

This suit is based on Act 25 of 1808, which provides that—

“Whenever a judgment of separation from bed and board shall have been rendered and no reconciliation between the spouses shall have taken place, the married person in whose favor the judgment of separation from bed and board shall have been rendered may, at the expiration of one year from the date that the said judgment shall have become final, apply to and obtain from the court that rendered the judgment of separation from bed and board, a judgment of final divorce from the other spouse.”

The defenses pleaded are that the judgment of separation from bed and board was obtained by fraud, and should be annulled; and that during the year since it was rendered the plaintiff has been living in open concubinage with another woman, which has rendered a reconciliation impossible.

These defenses cannot avail. The judgment in question cannot be attacked collaterally in this manner; and the statute takes no account of how the facts which it makes the grounds for divorce were brought about. Tortorich v. Maestri, 146 La. 130, 83 South. 431.

Judgment affirmed.  