Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

whom the people have made their agent to attend sessions of their law-making body, vote upon any measure by an agent. He is required to be present in person. It would seem that the same rule should apply to the acquisition of a domicile and some courts have so held (7). The cases wherein such questions have arisen were cases where the husband, after abandoning a domicile and having determined to acquire a new one, did not proceed to the new domicile himself, but sent his wife to the place, who resided there and kept the family there. The fact that he did not go there personally was held to be sufficient to prevent the domicile from attaching. Merely having an intention to acquire a domicile is insufficient; the act of removing to the place of domicile must accompany the intention (8).

Some courts, on the other hand, have held that a domicile can be acquired by deciding upon a place of domicile and sending the wife to it, without going there personally (9).

§ 50. Presence in foreign nation without intent to establish domicile. In Bell v. Kennedy (10) it became material to determine whether Mr. Bell's domicile was in Jamaica, his domicile of origin, or whether he had acquired a new domicile of choice in Scotland. His parents moved from Jamaica to Scotland. His father died when he was about ten years old. He was sent to school in Scotland, and after he had passed through col

(7) Hart v. Horn, 4 Kan., 232.

(8) Talmadge v. Talmadge, 66 Alabama, 199.
(9) Bangs v. Brewster, 111 Massachusetts, 382.
(10) L. R. 1 House of Lords (Scotch), 307.

lege, he traveled on the continent. He then returned to Jamaica and cultivated his father's estate, which, through his father's death, had become his property. A change was made in the laws of Jamaica which met with his disfavor, and he determined to abandon Jamaica as a place of domicile. He sought an estate in Scotland for several years but did not acquire one, and there was no evidence tending to show that he had finally settled in Scotland, although he was there during all these years. He talked of buying an estate in England and making that his domicile. Under the circumstances the court held Scotland was not his domicile, although he was actually present there for some time. He did not continue this presence with an actual intent to make Scotland his home. He seems to have divided his intention between England and Scotland. As long as his intent to be domiciled in one of the two had not appeared, he could not be deemed to be domiciled in either, but must be deemed to have retained his domicile of origin in Jamaica.

§ 51. Domicile while on the way to new abode. A party who resided and was domiciled at Boston concluded that he would leave Boston, never to return. He determined to make Waterford, Connecticut, his next domicile. Instead of going directly to Connecticut, he took a trip of four years in Europe, finally settling in Waterford. The question arose, whether he was domiciled during the four years in Massachusetts or in Connecticut. The court held (11) that during the period while he was on the way to his new domicile the four

(11) Borland v. Boston, 132 Massachusetts, 89.

years after the abandonment of his Massachusetts domicile he still retained that domicile. The case shows that a change of domicile cannot be effected while one is on his way to a new domicile, even though he have an intent to make the place in view a domicile. The presence in the new domicile must concur with the intent.

§ 52. Change of domicile not accomplished by mere absence. A change of domicile cannot be perfected by mere absence from a prior domicile. If a domicile is abandoned for purposes of regaining health, it will not be lost. In one case a woman went to Europe for her health. She had been domiciled in New York, and intended to return there after she had regained her health. While in Europe her physician informed her she could not return to her domicile in New York, but must remain in Europe. The court held that the mere fact that she had concluded that she could not return to New York did not operate to give her a domicile where she was compelled to remain. It was essential that she should determine upon some new domicile, before she would lose the old one. This she had not done and thus she had not lost her domicile (12). Similarly, domicile is not changed by a mere absence from it for pleasure or travel (13). The same rule would hold of an absence for purposes of business (14) or to hold public office (15).

§ 53. Compulsory absence from domicile. If a man is domiciled in one state and is taken to another under

(12) Dupuy v.Wurtz, 53 N. Y., 556.

(13)

Culbertson v. County, 52 Ind., 361.

(14) Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 Connecticut, 279.

(15) Hannon v. Grizzard, 89 N. C., 115.

arrest, he cannot be said to have changed his domicile to the state to which he was taken, merely by virtue of the change of physical presence (16). And one confined in a prison does not become domiciled therein (17). Paupers in a poor-house do not acquire a domicile there, but retain their former domicile (18). This is the rule unless an actual intent to acquire a domicile there is shown. Furthermore, political refugees, who are away from their native domicile by reason of the higher authority of the state, do not ordinarily relinquish their domicile (19). As stated by Lord Westbury in Udny v. Udny (20): "There must be a residence freely chosen, and not prescribed or dictated by any external necessity, such as the duties of office, the demands of creditors, or the relief from illness" in order to effect a change of domicile.

§ 54. Domicile of corporations. In the United States, a corporation, like a natural person, can have only one domicile. This is the state in which it was organized and incorporated (21). This rule is, however, not followed in England. The view there is that a corporation may have many domiciles. Lord Leonards said, in an opinion where the point was involved (22): "I think that this company may properly be deemed to have two domiciles. Its business is necessarily carried on by agents, and I do not know why its domicile should be

(16) Young v. Pollak, 85 Alabama, 439.
(17) Barton v. Barton, 74 Georgia, 761.
(18) Clark v. Robinson, 88 Illinois, 498.
(19) Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. (U. S.), 400.
(20) L. R. 1 House of Lords (Scotch), 441.
(21)

Bergner Co. v. Dreyfus, 172 Massachusetts, 154.
(22) Carron Iron Co. v. Maclaren, 5 H. L. C., 416, 449.

considered to be confined to the place where the goods are manufactured. The business transacted in England is very extensive. The places of business may, for the purpose of of jurisdiction, properly be deemed the domiciles."

« ZurückWeiter »