Danielson

This is an action for divorce. The trial court granted the husband, who is the defendant herein, a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. Plaintiff appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to sustain such decree.

The gist of plaintiff’s contention is that the finding of desertion rests wholly upon her alleged refusal to reside in the home selected by the defendant. As to such finding, it is insisted that there is no evidence showing that the defendant had actually selected some particular place as the home, or that he had offered a definite home to her and requested her to follow him, or that such home was a reasonable place of abode.

Appellant argues that in the absence of such a showing she could not be found guilty of desertion. The ease of Bibb v. Bibb, 39 Cal. App. 406 [ 179 Pac. 214 ], is cited in support of appellant’s position.

The answer to appellant’s contention lies in the fact that neither the pleadings nor the decree herein restrict the case to so narrow an issue. The cross-complaint upon which the decree was granted, in addition to setting forth the necessary statistical facts, alleges in paragraph Y: “ That on or about the 21st day of February,…