
    No. 10,369.
    William Heath vs. Mary H. Heath, His Wife.
    The abandonment by one of the married persons of the other, to be made the ground of separation from bed and board, must originate in this State, where there is a matrimonial domicil.
    When the matrimonial domicil was in Massachusetts and the abandonment occurred there, and the husband moved to Louisiana, where he acquired a residence, and the wife refused to come-to this .State, he can not sue in the courts of Louisiana for a separation from bod and board.
    The wife never having- been in Louisiana, the husband and wife could not, in her absence, acquire a matrimonial domicil here and have a common dwelling to which she could bo summoned to return.
    PPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. King, J.
    
    
      
      Rice & Armstrong for Plaintiff and Appellant:
    1. The domicil of the husband established lona fide is the domicil of the wife, except there be legal cause to the contrary. C. O. 120; Schouler on Husband and Wife, Sec. 00; Laquiévs. His Wife, 40 An. 459; 5 X. S. 01; lAn. 313; Vcrrel vs. Bouvaillon, 33 An. 1305.
    2. Actual abandonment by wife of husband’s domicil, when established in another State, and her continued abandonment and refusal to return to him, after lie lias bona fide established a domicil in Louisiana, is ground for qualified divorce in suit brought in Louisiana. Story on Conflict of Laws,81fd., Sec. 230; Schouler on Husband and Wife, Sec. 540; Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, Secs. 180,198; Cheever vs. Wilson, 9 Wall. U. S. S. O., 108; Laquié vs. Ilis AVife, 40 An. 459.
    3. Upon appeal from judgment maintaining exception of no cause of action, the allegations of facts in plaintiff’s petition will bo taken as true.
    
      A. B. Philips, Curator ad hoc, contra.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

McEnery, J.

The plaintiff instituted this suit for a separation of bed and board from his wife.

A curator ad hoe was appointed to represent the absent wife, who filed an exception of no cause of action, which was sustained, from which judgment the plaintiff appealed.

The allegations in the petition, which are taken as true for the purposes of the exception, are that the plaintiff and defendant were married in the State of Maine in the year 1856; that they afterward moved to and resided in the State of Massachusetts, where in 1878 the defendant wife abandoned the common dwelling; that in 1882 the plaintiff husband came to New Orleans, where he acquired a permanent residence and established his domicil, and has resided in Louisiana since that time; that the defendant wife refused to return to the common dwelling in Massachusetts, and persists in refusing to come to the domicil of the husband in Louisiana.

From this statement of facts it is evident that the parties to the marriage, which was consummated in Maine, did not contract the marriage under the laws of this State or with reference to the same. The abandonment complained of did not originate in Louisiana, but occurred and continued in Massachusetts long before the plaintiff came to the State to reside therein. The courts of Louisiana will not entertain suits for separation of bed and board and for divorce on matters which occurred in another State before the married parties acquired a domicil in the State. Edwards vs. Green, 9 An. 317.

In.this case the parties to the marriage never had a matrimonial domicil in this State, as the wife has never been here with her husband. There never has been a common dwelling here, and therefore the wife could not abandon it. Muller vs. Hilton, 13 An. 1; Champon vs. Champon, 40 An. 40.

The instant case is identical with Muller vs. Hilton.

In the case of Laquié vs. Wife, 40 An. 459, to which we have been referred by plaintiff’s counsel, the wife haq resided in Louisiana with her husband, who had acquired a domicil in the State. She abandoned the common dwelling after the husband and wife had established a domicil here.

In the instant case the abandonment originated and continued in another State. The married parties have never resided together in the State, and have therefore never acquired any matrimonial domicil in Louisiana to which the wife could be summoned to return.

Judgment affirmed.  