The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1898-09-01

Asss~a~s Ds~s Not Tate Away Aay
Right es rrssir~g~-
RALEIGH, Aug. "a. ISIS
Mr.. JoHN BRADY, Member Boar
of Commissioners, Agricultural
Department, Gate>viile, \. 4:
DEAR SIR: In reply to your let
ter OF recent date, requesting my
opinion upon the following state
ment Of facts: w. :. IL. carrie. his
family TO Suffolk. Va, tenn porarily,
for the purpose OF educating his
Children he remains NJ his home
In this state four flfths of his tim" :.
his wife comes home frequently
and remains u week at the time"
Does he lose his residence In this
State:" ! will say: The Ameri-
can and English Encyclopedia OF
Law, at page s51 Of volume >, de-
fines domicil a. follows: THAT
place where a man has his true,
fixed and permanent home and
principal establishment, and TO
which, whenever he il absent, he
has the intention OF returning"
In Hannon vs.. Grizzard, 50 y. C.,
at page l2O, Judge Smith says:
Residence, as used in art. q, sec. /,
OF the Constitution, defining politi-
cal rights. Is, in our opinion, essen-
TALLY synonymous with dOnicil,
denoting a permanent as distin-
guished from a temporary dwell
ing place" There may be a resi-
dence for specific purpose, as at
summer or winter resorts or to ac-
quire an education, or some art or
skill in which the animus rever-
tendi accompanies the whole period
OF absence, and this Is consistent
with the retention Of the original
and permanent home, with all its
incidental privileges and rights"
Judge CASTOR says in Roberts VS..
Cannon, 20 n. c., 2o6, that resi-
dence and domicil are used in the
Constitution as synonymous. Bou-
vier says: illegal residence, inhab-
itants and domicil are generally
used as synonymous Every ones
domicil of origin must be presumed
to continue until he has acquired
another sole dOmicil by actual r. si-
dence, with the intention OF aban-
dOning his domicil Of origin.
Two things must concur to con-
stitute domicil-first, residence,
and, secondly, the intention to
make it a home The fact of resi-
dence must be accompanied by an
intention of permanently residing
in the new domicil and OF aban-
deniRg the former; in other words,
the change of domicil must be made
manifest amino ct facto, by the fact
OF residence and the intention to
abandon. Plummer VS.. Brandon,
40 N. c. 100; Horne VS.. Horne, 81
n. C.9 90; Chitty VS.. Gritty, lis n.
c. 647; Fleming VS.. Straley, % n.
G.. 3O5; Commissioners VS.. Commits
sioners, 1O1 N. C. $40.
If a dOmicil has once existed,
mere temporary absence will not
destroy it, however long continued.
The law favors the presumption of
a continuance of domicil. Ferguson
VS.. Wright, ll3 n. c. 537.
Chief Justice Faircloth says
"The general rule from the cases
is that, when one leaves the State
with the intention of returning, he
does not lose his residence here"
Chitty VS.. Chitty. 1lS N. c., at
page $40.
Applying the foregoing princi-
pies of law to the statement OF
facts made by you and taken as
true, it is my opinion that the per-
son you refer to has not abandoned
his residence in this State nor lost
the privileges incident to such resi-
dence.
BY section 1868 of the Code only
State officers may require the
opinion Of the Attorney-General on
any question of law arising in the
administration Of his department.
But have given you the informa-
ton requested because of the inn
portance Of the question submitted
for consideration.
Yours very truly,
[Signedl ZEB. V. WALsER,
Acknowledgement.