The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-06-27
Taxation Of Americans Resident Abroad.
Before Ex.Judge Mason, Referee

SUPERIOR COURT.
Before ExJudge Mason, Referee.
Hickson w Field rs. The Mayor, aldermen and Common
ally If the City " Neao YWk-orisoS-The statute in re-
aon to the and collection Of taxes cnactss
that every person shall be assessed in the town or wards
in which he resides when the assessment is made for ala
personal estate owned by him, u Rev St p. rs, 4th M
So and the question presented for decision whether
the plaintiff at the time lie assessed for his PERSONAL
estate by the OF the Twelfth ward N abe years.
1853 and 1854, resident Of that ward In deciding
this question is important to distinguish -eEseen the
popular and the legal meaning of the word reside and
"resdencc.r In common parlance q man b said TO re-
side in a place where he may happen ne for Short
time, whether for business or pleasure and he may I'M
this reside in two more places IN she same year.
but man cannot exercise political rights, or be sub
iect to taxation at the time ia 5a;l place.
he can have but one legal residence at the same time and
for the same purpose The latter part u OF thei
statute above quoted is illustration OF thea dineren.
Of the word. 1t provides that whena persons
shall reside during any year in which aSes may he eyed'
in two or more counties towns or wards his residence
the purposes and within the meaning 81 this section
shall be deemed and held TO be in the county, town or
transacted His legal residence purpose Of
bxed though he may actually rsrde or dwell the,
rncilal part Of his time in another county, town
ward And though his legal residence for other purposes
such Us administering on his estate may be nsuch oher
county, town ward In not coming within this
special provision the legal residence OF party to be
eerained according TO established principles. by cgali
residence then, meant the place where pcrsUn po
htica rights exercised where subject
aton Crawford VS.. Wilson, Barb S. c. r. 52) and in,
words " domce, . : inhabitaneY and residcnce,'
have the same meaning. (Thorndike City Of
The question, therefore where aid the pnG reside a.
the time the assessments in question laid eTuva-
home." There are certain maxms which viii guide us
in arriving at just conclusion in this matter. Every
gabond, Qhimorc law Of domic.l p. II, 49, and
he can have but one tsmc at the same tine and for the
another
does not acquire another until he has manifested and
domic and taking another as his sole doniciA The
QUESTION OF new domicl does at the same instant ter
inmate the former one lsomervile VS.. somervlle s.
wilson 4 Barb. s {. r. 522) When person removes
from his domicil home with intent to change it,
length Of residence in the place is necessary 10 COM
pee the change, il complete by the union OF the act Of
removal with the intention. Length Of time alone will not
DO IL intention alone will not do it, but the two taken to-
gether constitute change of domc (The Venus Cr
.53, e7e; Collins vs. Rivaz Curtes Eccics R. S5e(
choice being shown, is for the party alleging change
to establish such change by positive acts II they do not
vs.. Gore, Pick 376; Klburn vs. Bennett, Met 1851
With the aid Of these principles we may arrive at acor-
rect conclusion in this
lit is admitted that the plaintiff domiciled in the
CITY OF New York II this city was not his domicil on
origin certainly was Of choice. He had lived here the
greater part Of his fe his business, his family, his
sion house, his property, all here he WE'LL
known as one Of our old and wealthy citizens, and his.
not disputed
H-Has he abandoned his dsmicilq The. plinnf relied,
on the circumstance OF his giving up his house. which he
leased for term of years, with the right terminating
the lease upon six months notice, and dv ling his furn.
ture and family pictures between his two Children i
cannot, however, attribute much weuht to this fact
There are not many among who find II convenient
to keep up their domestic establishment when thew
go abroad for single year, and the breaking up
ones establishment and selling house and furniture
would not in my Judgment, show concusiveiy an inen
foreign country. But in this there was only a
change Of family arrangements the mansion house be-
uas LANCE frOnh ,,tp <l,ocn
surrendered when he had no longer any for it, The
furniture, &C. was not sold, bat distributed TO his chill
resumed at any moment Neither any inference as
TO his change OF domci be drawn from the fact that the
plaintiff said nothing about returning this city 10 the
witnesses who saw him in Paris in 1854 and 1855 It's
merely negative evidence at best appears that he was
in Paris for the benefit OF his and his wifes health
and although he said he might live return and thas
he had no definite purpose to the Of his return
ye. na very lar from proving that when he left this
domci and residing permanently in Paris There not
particle OF evidence 70 show that when he went abroad
effect his former doinicil remains. think, however,
that the power Of attorney introduced in evidence show
irmatively that the plaintiff did intend change o;
At Paris on ne sih Of April, 1854 In he describe
gentleman now temporarily resident in Paris in the en-
pre- Of Franco" 1t rectes power Of attorney givent
described himself 'of the city Of New York gentle.
man. now residing in Paris, in the kingdom Of France,
Jay; his son, Hickson W. Field, Jr and BENJAMIN n
Field his attorneys for the term Of two years from thee
Date thereof In the second power he reapponts the
same persons his attorneys, with the powers un-
I'll my return to the city Of New York, whatsoever has,
may be Now, appears to me that the necessary in
ierehces from these documents are-1. That when he
executed the in 1852 he expected 10 be absent for
two years, or which is the same thing to be home in
two years That when he executed the second power
ne had no definite purpose to the time Of bis retarn
but that he still expected return and resume the
management Of his own affairs. 3. That his description
himself in both powers shows that he considered him.
sell as st Of New York and that his absence but
temporary The inference in favor Of his legal residence
being unchanged, 70 be drawn from this document IN
much stronger than any evidence adduced by the plain
tin in support OF change The general principles OF
law on this subject and the express decision the case
Of Sears vs. City Of Boston, Met, 250 above referred
to, fully justify dismissal Of the complaint with costs