Smith v. Smith

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Smith v. Smith

39 So. 2d 162, 214 La. 881, 1949 La. LEXIS 892

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 14, 1949

DocketNo. 38915.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 39 So. 2d 162 (Smith v. Smith) 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

Smith v. Smith, 39 So. 2d 162, 214 La. 881, 1949 La. LEXIS 892 (La. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMITER, Justice.

Because of the regrettable, as well as unusual and unnatural, defense offered herein on behalf of and by the wife in resisting the demand of her husband for part time custody of her child, we prefer not to indulge in an extended discussion of this action which was instituted 'by the husband primarily to recover a judgment of separation from bed and board on the ground of abandonment admitted by the wife.

It is sufficient to say that the appeal presents the single legal question of whether the wife has the right to contest her husband’s paternity of a child born during the marriage (presumed to be his under Revised Civil Code Articles 184 and 186), and to announce our conclusion, supported amply by the hereinafter cited authorities, that the able trial judge correctly answered such question in the negative. See Revised Civil Code Articles 184 to 192, inclusive; Eloi v. Mader, 1 Rob. 581, 38 Am.Dec. 192; Dejol et al. v. Johnson, Administrator, 12 La.Ann. 853; Succession of Saloy, 44 La.Ann. 433, 10 So. 872; Succession of Flynn, 161 La. 707, 109 So. 395.

The judgment is affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., does not take part.

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

HAMITER, Justice.

Because of the regrettable, as well as unusual and unnatural, defense offered herein on behalf of and by the wife in resisting the demand of her husband for part time custody of her child, we prefer not to indulge in an extended discussion of this action which was instituted 'by the husband primarily to recover a judgment of separation from bed and board on the ground of abandonment admitted by the wife.

It is sufficient to say that the appeal presents the single legal question of whether the wife has the right to contest her husband’s paternity of a child born during the marriage (presumed to be his under Revised Civil Code Articles 184 and 186), and to announce our conclusion, supported amply by the hereinafter cited authorities, that the able trial judge correctly answered such question in the negative. See Revised Civil Code Articles 184 to 192, inclusive; Eloi v. Mader, 1 Rob. 581, 38 Am.Dec. 192; Dejol et al. v. Johnson, Administrator, 12 La.Ann. 853; Succession of Saloy, 44 La.Ann. 433, 10 So. 872; Succession of Flynn, 161 La. 707, 109 So. 395.

The judgment is affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., does not take part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 So. 2d 162, 214 La. 881, 1949 La. LEXIS 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-la-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack