
    MILLER v. MILLER.
    1. Divorce' — Desertion.
    To entitle husband to decree of divorce on ground of desertion, he must establish by competent proof cessation of cohabitation, abandonment by wife without fault on his part, and that separation was against his will and desire.
    2. Same — Separation by Agreement Not Desertion.
    Where finding of trial court that wife did not desert husband but that they separated pursuant to agreement is sustained by record, husband’s suit for divoree on ground of desertion was properly dismissed.
    
      Appeal from Washtenaw; Sample (George W.), J.
    Submitted January 13, 1931.
    
    (Docket No. 108, Calendar No. 35,250.)
    Decided February 27, 1931.
    Bill for divorce by Charles B. Miller against Alvine Beaulieu Miller on the ground of desertion. From decree dismissing bill, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Carl A. Lehman, for plaintiff.
    
      William M. Laird, for defendant.
   North, J.

By his bill of complaint plaintiff seeks a divorce from the bonds of matrimony on the ground of desertion. The decree denied the relief sought. Plaintiff has appealed.

A complaining party is not entitled to a decree of divorce for desertion unless he establishes by competent proof (1) cessation of cohabitation, (2) abandonment by his spouse without fault on complainant’s part, and (3) that the abandonment or separation was against the will and desire of the party seeking the decree.

The circuit judge found: “That the said defendant did not desert the said plaintiff but that said parties separated pursuant to an agreement entered into between them,” etc. We have reviewed the record carefully. It abundantly sustains the above finding. The decree is affirmed, with costs to appellee.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, and Fead, JJ., concurred.  