Kendrick v. Kendrick, 8214.

• Decision Date: 17 September 1931
• Docket Number: No. 8214.,8214.
• Citation: 160 S.E. 502,173 Ga. 434
• Parties: KENDRICK v. KENDRICK.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

173 Ga. 434

160 S.E. 502

KENDRICK

v.KENDRICK.

No. 8214.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 17, 1931.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; Peter W. Meldrin, Judge.

Action for divorce by Pauline Kendrick against J. T. Kendrick. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Reversed.

Travis & Travis, of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.

Aaron Kravitch, of Savannah, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

ATKINSON, J.

1. Evidence that a wife refused to live in the home of her husband solely because the latter wished his mother to live in the home with them, without showing any specific ground of objection to the mother or other reasons why she should not live with them, will not justify the wife in refusing to live with her husband, and will not support a petition for divorce based on alleged three years continued willful desertion by the husband. See Perkerson v. Perkerson, 157 Ga. 589, 122 S. E. 53.

2. Evidence that, after alleged acts of cruel treatment, the parties voluntarily renewed their marital relations by living together as husband and wife for one week, and that there was no subsequent cruel treatment upon the part of the husband, shows condonation (Phinizy v. Phinizy, 154 Ga. 199[3], 114 S. E. 185; Glenn v. Glenn, 152 Ga. 793[4], 111 S. E. 378; Sorrells v. Sorrells, 162 Ga. 734, 134 S. E. 767), and will not support a petition for divorce based on alleged cruel treatment.

3. The petition for divorce by the wife in this case being upon the grounds both of willful and continued desertion for a term of three years as provided in the Civil Code, § 2945(7), and of cruel treatment as provided in section 2946, and the uncontradicted evidence of the wife being substantially as indicated in the preceding divisions, the judge erred in giving the instruction to the jury upon which error is assigned. The instruction referred to was as follows: "Now, as a general rule, the husband has the right to select the home; and unless there is some good reason to the contrary, the wife must go to the home selected by the husband. Plaintiff contends that she would not go to the home selected by her husband, because he insisted on her mother-in-law living in the home with her; and whether there was a valid objection for refusing to go to the home offered by the defendant is for you to determine; and if there was a good objection on the part of this woman as to why she would not go to the home furnished by her husband, then...