DeArmond v. DeArmond

Citation53 S.W. 45,66 Ark. 601
PartiesDE ARMOND v. DE ARMOND
Decision Date07 October 1899
CourtArkansas 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.

OPINION

WOOD, J.

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 circuit court shall have power to dissolve and set aside a marriage contract, not only from bed and board, but from the bonds of matrimony, for the following causes: * * * Second. Where either party wilfully deserts and absents himself or herself from the other for the space of one year without reasonable cause." 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
6 cases
  • Standard Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Schmaltz
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1899
  • Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf Railway Company v. Holden
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1899
  • York v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 18, 1909
    ...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
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1909
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT