[484] On cruelty see Powelson _v._ Powelson, 22 _Cal._, 358; Morris _v._ Morris, 14 _Cal._, 76; Kelly _v._ Kelly, 1 _West Coast Rep._, 143; Eidenmuller _v._ Eidenmuller, 37 _Cal._, 394; Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 _Cal._, 459; Pierce _v._ Pierce, 15 _Am. Dec._, 210, note. In general Poore _v._ Poore, 29 _Am. Dec._, 664.
[485] Sec. 96 of the "Civil Code" also declares that "persistent refusal to have reasonable matrimonial intercourse as husband and wife, when health or physical condition does not make such refusal reasonably necessary, or the refusal of either party to dwell in the same house with the other party, when there is no just cause for such refusal, is desertion."--DEERING, _Codes and Stat._ (1886), II, 34; POMEROY, _Civil Code_ (1901), 48.
On desertion see especially Hardenberg _v._ Hardenberg, 14 _Cal._, 654; Benkert _v._ Benkert, 32 _Cal._, 467; Morrison _v._ Morrison, 20 _Cal._, 431; Christie _v._ Christie, 53 _Cal._, 26; also Stein _v._ Stein, 5 _Col._, 55; Pilgrim _v._ Pilgrim, 57 _Iowa_, 370.
[486] For interpretation of the law regarding neglect to provide see Devoe _v._ Devoe, 51 _Cal._, 543; Washburn _v._ Washburn, 9 _Cal._, 475; Rycraft _v._ Rycraft, 42 _Cal._, 444.
[487] On habitual intemperance consult Mahone _v._ Mahone, 19 _Cal._, 626, 629; Haskell _v._ Haskell, 54 _Cal._, 262.
[488] DEERING, _Codes and Stat. of Cal._ (1886), III, 31. The development of the law of California regarding divorce, as given in the text, may be traced in _Stat._ (1851), 186, 187; _ibid._ (1853), 70; _Comp. Laws_ (1853), 371, 372; act of March 12, 1870: in _Stat._ (1869-70), 291; act of March 30, 1874: in _Acts Amendatory of the Codes_, 181-91; POMEROY, _Civil Code_ (1901), 40-62.
The California codes and decisions, as is well understood, have been freely adopted or followed by a number of western states. This is especially true regarding divorce legislation. The causes and conditions of action recognized by California law have often been accepted outright.[489] Such, for example, is the case in Montana. By the code of 1895 the same six causes sanctioned by the law of California since 1874 are recognized; while the prescribed definitions, already in part summarized from that law, are almost exactly reproduced. The grounds for dissolution of wedlock are identical, except in their phraseology, with those authorized by the original Montana act of 1865, save that in addition impotence and bigamous contract were then enumerated among the legal causes of divorce. There is no separation from bed and board in Montana; but the wife may be allowed separate maintenance, although a decree of divorce is denied. Since 1865 the respective district courts, on the chancery side, have had jurisdiction in absolute divorce and in all questions of alimony and annulment of voidable contracts.[490]