DeArmond v. DeArmond
Citation | 53 S.W. 45,66 Ark. 601 |
Parties | DE ARMOND v. DE ARMOND |
Decision Date | 07 October 1899 |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Faulkner Chancery Court THOS. B. MARTIN, Chancellor.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
E. A. Bolton, for appellant.
To constitute such desertion as entitles to divorce, three things are necessary: (1) Cessation of the deserter from cohabitation for the statutory period; (2) the intent of the deserter not to return; (3) absence of consent of the deserted party. 34 Ark. 37; 53 Ark. 484; 62 Ark. 611; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 799. The evidence clearly establishes all these, and plaintiff was entitled to a divorce.
Appellant brought suit for divorce. She alleged, with proper averment, wilful desertion of her husband for a period of more than one year. The answer denied the material allegations of the complaint. The cause was heard upon the complaint and answer and depositions of several witnesses taken on the part of the plaintiff. The complaint was dismissed for want of equity. The statute provides that: The proof fully sustained the charge, and therefore the decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity was erroneous. The appellant is entitled to a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, as she prays in her complaint.
The decree of the chancellor is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to enter a decree in favor of appellant for divorce, and for alimony and attorney's fees.
To continue reading
Request your trial- Standard Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Schmaltz
- Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf Railway Company v. Holden
-
York v. State
...are to be considered as a whole. When that is done, it appears that the whole law of this case was given to the jury. 64 Ark. 250; 66 Ark. 601; 74 Ark. 431; 377. OPINION BATTLE, J. James York was indicted at the August, 1908, term of the Bradley Circuit Court for murder in the first degree ......
-
Craig v. Craig
...a case of desertion. 2 Bishop on Marriage, Divorce & Separation, § 1475; Jennings v. Jennings, 2 Beasley (N.J. Eq.) 38; De Armond v. De Armond, 66 Ark. 601. have carefully examined the testimony of this case, and we are unable to say that the chancellor has committed any error in his findin......