The Bismarck tribune., 1935-01-28


Sparks vs.. Sparks, ia Tenn. 666;
% aW ITS.
Stall VS.. williams Admir-. 2s sw
(2ndD Ky.
Robinson vs.. Paxton, 2lo Ky. SIS:
276 sW 500.
Hodges vs.. Murray, 24o KY. 1T;
Il sW (2nd) 923.
Gilbert vs.. David. 23s u. g. 500;
50 L. ed. $50.
In Re Dorrance,s Estate, 800 Pa.
Isl: l6S A. 3o3.
Berry vs.. Wilcox
This was an election contest in
which the votes Of seventeen students
attending . university within the
voting district were challenged. It
was stipulated within the case that
they were emancipated minors whose
main purpose was to pursue q course
Of studies in that election district.
There was no apparent intention to
return to the homes Of their parents,
but It was intended to seek employ
ment during vacations and after the
completion Of their course at such
places as they might find the en-
! ployment. Their course Of studies
was indefinite.
Held: A residence was establish
ed as the students had abandoned
their parents home and would reside
In the election district for an in
definite period Of time in this state.
"The fact that he may at future
time intend to remove will not neces-
Sarily defeat his residence before he
actually does remove. It Is not nee
essary that he should have the inten-
ton Of always remaining, but there
must co-exist the fact and the in
tention OF making 1t his present abid-
ing place and there must be no inten-
ton Of presently removing"
This case Is much quoted author
ity which summarizes the earlier case
law on the question and distinguishes
vanderpoel VS.. OKanley. So Ia. GAG:
SO Am. Rep. 216: Prey's Election Case.
II Penn. st. 302: 10 Am. Rep. sos as
following the old rule that the in
tention must be one Of always re-
naming"
KluttS vs.. Jones
This Is q challenge Of q special
election to decide the issuance of
bonds by the school district which
election resulted In q fifty-nine to
fifty-eight vote in favor of issuing
the bonds.
The basis Of the challenge is that
q school teacher who had been pres
ent within the district for the re-
quired statutory period in order to
vote had cast an illegal vote for the
bond issue because she was not q resi-
dent. The teacher was self-sup-
porting adult who was under contract
to teach for the school term. She
testified that she did not intend to
remain within the district II a better
position should become available In
the future.
Held: Domicile Of the teacher was
established In the school district.
The court relied on Berry VS.. Wil-
cox, and disagreed with the argument
made that because of the teachers
intent to leave should better posi-
ton become available that she had
no domicile. The court says that such
an extreme view" Of the intent nee
essary in establishing domicile would
find support only In the older cases.
Were this the rule many persons who
because Of their employment were
sent from place to place would never
be able to vote, such as railway men
and ministers.
Brittenham vs.. Robinson
The question was here raised
whether the mortgage involved was
recorded at the residence Of the mort
gagor whom the court calls mere
adventurers in the oil fields Of In
diana"
These adventurers were held to
have their residence place In Indiana
where the mortgages were filed.
I'VE conclude that it Is not neces-
sary that there shall be an intention
to remain permanently at the chosen
domicile. It Is enough If It Is for a
time the home to the exclusion Of
other places"
Ludlow VS.. Wilbraham
The residence in question in this
pauper case was that Of laborer who
Travelled about seeking employment
where he might find 1t and which the
court found would make his domicile
at the place where he worked.
such q man 50 situated, when he
is laboring in one town with no other
intention as to residence except to
have 9 home wherever he works. may
we'll be deemed to live there with the
purpose Of remaining an indefinite
period Of time and thus would have
there all the home he has anywhere,
as much Of q domicile as such a wan
derer can have" 59l
Sleeper VS.. Pace
1T his residence out Of the Com
monwealth was but temporary. yet
II the time Of his proposed return was
indefinite, he retained no domicile In
the Commonwealth"
Barton VS.. Irasburch
"A mental purpose Of return at a
future indefinite time, when there Is
no particular home to return to. Is
not the aniinus revertendi that deter
mines residence" (l6D
WinanS VS.. Winans
This was q divorce action In which
the Jurisdiction Of the Massachusetts
court was questioned. The husbands
domicile the court found to be Of the
most unsettled character" because OF
his intermittent travels. The husband
had come to Boston after his we'd
ding and lived with his wife for two
weeks while making arrangements
for q house in a suburb. After two
weeks he left Boston to visit his moth
er In Virginia and never returned to
Boston.
The court found his domicile to be
In Massachusetts, since his presence
there and his intent concurred. For
the purposes Of divorce proceedings
the length Of time or the existence
Of . particular place Of abode were
not necessary.
Under such circumstances (of most
unsettled residence) the acquisition Of
o new donlicile or q change OF dom
icile will be much more easily and
readily inferred than when one had