Judson v. Lathrop
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Parish Court of Now Orleans, Mawrian, J. cited 16 La. 596. 3 Robinson, 243. There is a distinction between domicil and residence. B. & C.’s Digest, 286 — 7. The declaration made by defendant of his intention to preserve his original domicil, is conclusive. Civil Code, arts. 44, 45. The exception was properly sustained below.
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Slidell, J.
In this case, the defendant declines the jurisdiction of the Parish Court of New Orleans, on the ground that his legal domicil is in - the parish of East Feliciana.
The facts established in this case show that, about the year 1840, the defendant came to Louisiana from the north, and soon after entered into mercantile business with one Nichols, in the parish of East Feliciana, under the firm of Nichols & Lathrop. In 1842, the defendant began to live during a part of the year in New Orleans, and transacted the business of a commission…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Succession of McElweeLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1973
- Barrow v. BarrowSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1925
- John A. Wogan, Inc. v. FolseSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1924