According to tbe authorities, tbe suit for divorce, on tbe ground of cruelty, is substantially a proceeding quia timet. Tbe court interferes, not merely because acts of cruelty have beеn committed, nor to punish such acts, but to afford protection to the complainаnt for tbe future. — Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, §§ 454-501, where the authorities are collеcted.
Any conduct on tbe part of tbe husbаnd, which furnishes reasonable apprehension that tbe continuance of tbe cоhabitation would be attended with bodily barm to thе wife, is legal cruelty to ber. Of course, an аct of unlawful violence on bis part, occasioning pain and injury to ber, and implying future risk tо ber life, limb, or health, amounts to cruelty. But there may be cruelty in him, ■without actual violencе. Thus, if he starve bis wife, or, if be refuse to supply ber with tbe necessaries of life, when it is in bis power to supply them, it is cruelty in him.
Tbe case made by tbe bill of the wife, now under con
It is true, that section 1966 of the Code provides that when a divorce on the ground of adultery is desired, the suit must be brought “within one year after the disсovery of the act (of adultery) chargеd,” or no decree can be renderеd for the complainant. But there is no such provision as to a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty ; and we have no authority for requiring a complainant, in such a suit as this, to allege more than is alleged in the present bill.
The chаncellor erred, in sustaining the demurrer, and dismissing the bill; and his decree is reversed, and the cause remanded. The appellee must pay the costs of the appeal.