A court has no jurisdiction to render an affirmative judgment in favor of a cross defendant whose complaint for divorce has been dismissed and who has pleaded only defensive matters in answer to the cross complaint for separate maintenance. Rogers v. Rogers, 35 Idaho 645, 208 P. 234; Bell v. Bell, 15 Idaho 7, 96 P. 196; Reinauer v. Davis, 191 Okl. 366, 130 P.2d 91; Van Sicklin v. Mayfield Land Livestock Co., 41 Idaho 673, 241 P. 1022; West v. Shurtliff, 28 Utah 337, 79 P. 180; City Bond Share v. Klement, 165 Wn. 408, 5 P.2d 523; Harman v. Yeager, 103 Utah 208, 134 P.2d 695. The husband or wife may have a claim against the community property for separate property invested therein, but neither is entitled to an accounting or to involuntary sale or partition of the community property for reimbursement of the separate estate while the community remains undissolved.

Therefore, the judgment is modified to allow plaintiff to recover the amount paid for the dog, $800, and $255 for actual necessary expense in caring for the dog, and as so modified, the judgment is affirmed. Under the rule announced in Reinauer v. Davis, 191 Okla. 366, 130 P.2d 91, and following the statute, 12 O.S. 1951 § 978[ 12-978], the costs of this appeal shall be equally divided between the plaintiff and defendant. HALLEY, C.J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, ARNOLD, WILLIAMS, and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.