Diez v. Diez
| Decision Date | 28 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 39764,39764 |
| Citation | 219 La. 576,53 So.2d 677 |
| Parties | DIEZ v. DIEZ. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Walter Lemann, Sidney A. Marchand, Sr., and Glynn A. Long, Donaldsonville, for defendant-appellant.
Blanchard & Blanchard, Donaldsonville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant, George Diez, Jr., prosecutes this appeal from a judgment of the district court which granted Mrs. Parilee Roddy Diez, his third wife, a divorce, a vinculo matrimonii, on the grounds of adultery alleged to have been committed by defendant in the early morning of July 31, 1949. The judgment also awarded to plaintiff $35 per month as alimony, and $200 as attorney's fees. Defendant has appealed.
The sole question before us is one of fact: Does the evidence in the record justify our finding of manifest error in the trial court's judgment that defendant-appellant was guilty of adultery?
There is the usual conflict of testimony. Plaintiff-appellee produced three witnesses, one of whom was her mother and the other two of whom were neighbors, who testified that they and the plaintiff followed appellant to his home from a night club in the early hours of the morning of July 31, 1949, and they saw first appellant, and then his ex-wife, go into appellant's house (appellant and appellee had separated about a month previously), and embrace and kiss each other, that then the lights went out in the house and that the ex-wife failed to emerge for at least one hour and 30 minutes, whereupon, the observers departed. Defendant, on the other hand denied that anyone was there with him, and his sister, Mrs. Bolt, testified that the ex-wife had slept with her that particular night at her, the sister's home (they had all been at a dance); and the defendant's brother testified that when he went to defendant's home at 7 in the morning, defendant was alone. Another sister of defendant, Mrs. Harrison, testified that the ex-wife was in the home of Mrs. Bolt very early in the morning.
The evidence is conflicting and equally controversial. We must therefore draw on the experience of the past, and look to the jurisprudence. The rule has been crystalized to the point of solid stabilization, that the judgment of a district court will not be disturbed on a question of fact unless manifestly erroneous. Lejeune v. Lejeune, 187 La. 339, 174 So. 643; Dessalles v. Tichenor, 189 La. 31, 179 So. 25; Barnes v. LeBlanc, 207 La. 989, 22 So.2d 404; Thornton v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michel v. Efferson
...the witnesses, his conclusions on the facts should not be disturbed unless his findings prove to be manifestly erroneous. Diez v. Diez, 219 La. 576, 53 So.2d 677 and cases therein cited; Moser v. Moser, 220 La. 295, 56 So.2d For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is af......
-
Buxton v. McKendrick
...Swan, 221 La. 329, 59 So.2d 409; Moser v. Moser, 220 La. 295, 56 So.2d 553; Cormier v. Douet, 219 La. 915, 54 So.2d 177; and Diez v. Diez, 219 La. 576, 53 So.2d 677. The law relating to fraud applicable here will be revealed by the In Sanders v. Sanders, 222 La. 233, 62 So.2d 284, 286, it i......
-
Nalty v. Nalty, 40285
...Douet, 219 La. 915, 54 So.2d 177; Eals v. Swan, 221 La. 329, 59 So.2d 409; Moser v. Moser, 220 La. 295, 56 So. 2d 553; and Diez v. Diez, 219 La. 576, 53 So.2d 677. Before discussing the alleged errors, it is well to note that Louis D. Nalty was interdicted on November 18, 1949, and confined......
-
Russell v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co.
...erroneous. Guin v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 224 La. 44, 68 So.2d 752; Barlotta v. Walker, 223 La. 157, 65 So.2d 122; Diez v. Diez, 219 La. 576, 53 So.2d 677. From our own review of the record, we are not only unable to discern any manifest error in the conclusions reached by the trial cour......