1. Where, during the life of her husband, the wife separates from him and assumes a relationship of separation, she is to all intents and purposes sui juris, and may institute suit for alimony if she so elects; and where permanent alimony is either granted by judgment of a court, or the alimony suit is settled by contract between the parties, whereby she accepts money or property in settlement of the claim for permanent alimony, and such contract is not annulled by subsequent cohabitation and reconciliation, under applicable law it bars her of her rights of dower and year's support from her husband’s estate, and she ceases to have any further interest in his estate in her right as wife. Code § 30-218;
Stewart
*583
v.
Stewart,
43
Ga.
294;
Harris
v.
Davis,
115
Ga.
950 (
2. While a contract in settlement of a claim for alimony stands upon the same basis as other contracts to the extent that it is subject to construction by the court, and, in the construction thereof, the intention of the parties should be arrived at and given effect, if
“it contravenes no rule of law”
(Code § 20-702;
Brown
v.
Farkas,
195
Ga.
653,
3. Under the foregoing rulings, the plaintiff’s petition failed to
*584
state a cause of action, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer thereto. The fact that the plaintiff in her representative capacity as temporary administratrix of her husband’s estate intervened as party plaintiff does not save the petition as against the general demurrer. As intervenor she takes the case as she finds it, and “ 'Since the petition was insufficient and must fall because no cause of action is alleged therein, the intervention must likewise fall and meet the same fate as the petition.’ ”
Romar Acceptance Corp.
v.
Parham,
213
Ga.
223 (3) (
Judgment affirmed.
