Pinnebad v. Pinnebad

68 S.E. 73, 134 Ga. 496, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 244
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 11, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 68 S.E. 73 (Pinnebad v. Pinnebad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pinnebad v. Pinnebad, 68 S.E. 73, 134 Ga. 496, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 244 (Ga. 1910).

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. That a wife brings suit against her husband and recovers judgment against him for a debt due to hex-, and that after separation she sues him for temporary alimony and obtains a judgment in such action, does not constitute cruel treatment or furnish to the husband any basis for a suit for divorce.

2. Mere proof that a wife declined to cohabit with her husband will not authorize the grant of a divoi-ce to him on the ground of ci-uel treatment.

3. Considering wilful and persistent denial by a wife of the conjugal rights of her husband, without justification, and with the intention of casting him off as a husband completely and forever, as constituting desertion, although she continue to reside in the matrimonial domicile, under section 2426 _of the Civil Code such desertion must continue for three years in order to furnish a ground for a suit for divorce. Whitfield v. Whitfield, 89 Ga. 871 (15 S. E. 543).

4. Under the rulings in Ring v. Ring, 118 Ga. 183 (44 S. E. 861, 62 L. R. A. 878), Brown v. Brown, 129 Ga. 247 (58 S. E. 825), and Stoner v. Stoner, ante, 368 (67 S. E. 1030), the evidence failed to show a case of ci’uel treatment which authorized the grant of a divorce on that ground; and the evidence of the plaintiff showed that there had been no desertion wilfully and continuously pei-sisted in for three years before the bringing of the suit. The verdict finding- a total divorce for the plaintiff was thei-efore unauthorized by the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Alldnson, J., disqualified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harkness v. Harkness
184 S.E.2d 566 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Gibbons v. Maryland Casualty Co.
152 S.E.2d 815 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Hinkle v. Hinkle
74 S.E.2d 657 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1953)
X. v. X.
47 A.2d 470 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1946)
Cagle v. Cagle
17 S.E.2d 75 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Duncan v. Duncan
192 S.E. 215 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Westberry v. Westberry
159 S.E. 671 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Ross v. Ross
150 S.E. 822 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
125 S.E. 856 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Schoren v. Schoren
214 P. 885 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1924)
Foster v. Foster
138 N.E. 360 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1923)
Roush v. Roush
111 S.E. 334 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 S.E. 73, 134 Ga. 496, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinnebad-v-pinnebad-ga-1910.