Wolford

Plaintiff brought an action for divorce on ground of desertion. Defendant filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint, and a cross-complaint praying for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. Plaintiff filed an answer to the cross-complaint, alleging as a special defense that such allegations of cruelty were identical with those pleaded and litigated in a previous action brought by defendant wife against him, wherein an interlocutory decree of divorce was granted, but a final decree was denied when it appeared that the parties had resumed marital relations.

The lower court granted defendant’s motion for a nonsuit, and granted an interlocutory decree of divorce to defendant upon her cross-complaint. The court also determined the character of and divided the community property.

Plaintiff’s chief ground of attack is the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings and judgment; and he also points to several errors of the court.

An examination of the findings, conclusions of law, and the decree, shows that the trial court did not clearly indicate whether the decree was based upon the allegations of cruelty or desertion, although orally the court stated…