154 P. 483 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1915
This is an appeal taken from a judgment denying the plaintiff a decree of divorce. The defendant suffered default, and the court heard testimony at great length, all of which is presented here by transcript of the reporter. The *70
ground alleged was extreme cruelty. As described in the complaint, the facts relied upon were those which it is asserted established a course of cruel conduct practiced by the defendant against the plaintiff, and which commenced within a few weeks after their marriage in June, 1911, and continued almost uninterruptedly for a year and a half, or until the plaintiff left the defendant. At the conclusion of the testimony the court orally summed up the case as being one of incompatibility of temperament, for which no divorce could be granted, and declared that the proof did not show extreme cruelty. No findings of fact were made. The only purported finding of any kind is the recitation found in the judgment as follows: "The court finds the evidence did not prove extreme cruelty and is insufficient to warrant a decree of divorce." This finding, if it was intended as a finding of fact, and if written findings are required to be made in divorce actions, was wholly insufficient. (Franklin v. Franklin,
In this view we are in strict accord with the reasoning of the court in the case of Nelson v. Nelson,
Our conclusion is, not only that the judgment lacks the support of sufficient findings of fact, but that the evidence does not sustain the judgment denying a divorce, and that the court committed error as to its rulings on the admission of testimony which was prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff.
The judgment is reversed.
Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred. *78