Martin v. Martin

34 So. 2d 329, 212 La. 1092, 1948 La. LEXIS 823
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 16, 1948
DocketNo. 38579.
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 34 So. 2d 329 (Martin v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Martin v. Martin, 34 So. 2d 329, 212 La. 1092, 1948 La. LEXIS 823 (La. 1948).

Opinion

McCALEB, Justice.

Plaintiff sued her husband for a separation from bed and board, alleging that he has been guilty of cruel and outrageous treatment toward her which renders their living together insupportable. Specifically, she charged (1) that he cursed and abused her on different occasions; (2) that he failed to fix a gas heater in the house while she was sick; (3) that he failed to properly provide for her support and (4) that he was seen hugging and kissing another woman in a house located in the city of Baton Rouge.

The defendant denied all of the allegations except the one relative to his failure to fix the gas heater and, as to that charge, he declared that he tried to repair the heater but was unable to make it work.

After a hearing in the district court, there was judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the suit. Plaintiff has appealed.

The case presents for consideration only questions of fact. Plaintiff attempted to sustain the charges by her own testimony, which was corroborated in part by two other witnesses. This evidence was opposed by defendant’s denials. The trial judge thought that the case was with the defendant stating, in a written opinion, that he was not impressed with the testimony tendered by plaintiff and her supporting witnesses.

After a perusal of the record, we find it impossible to say that the judge was wrong in his appreciation of the weight of the evidence. In these circumstances, the judgment will not be disturbed as this court does not set aside factual findings of a district court in the absence of .obvious *549 error. Trascher v. Ducote, 178 La. 925, 152 So. 567.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Green v. Provencal Tie Mill
411 So. 2d 1228 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1982)
Continental Casualty Co. v. Professional Trim & Upholstery, Inc.
398 So. 2d 1190 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1981)
Robert J. Naquin & Associates, Inc. v. Portage Plantation, Inc.
394 So. 2d 698 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1981)
Samuels v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
342 So. 2d 661 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1977)
Ory v. Griffin
162 So. 2d 97 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)
Pino v. Bennett
126 So. 2d 460 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1961)
Brown v. Hockenjos
95 So. 2d 353 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1957)
During v. Thibodeaux
70 So. 2d 882 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1954)
Rosenthal v. Gauthier
69 So. 2d 367 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1953)
Guin v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co.
68 So. 2d 752 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1953)
Cormier v. Douet
54 So. 2d 177 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1951)
Diez v. Diez
53 So. 2d 677 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1951)
Roy v. Louisiana State Department of Agriculture & Immigration
44 So. 2d 822 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 So. 2d 329, 212 La. 1092, 1948 La. LEXIS 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-martin-la-1948.