The Bismarck tribune., 1935-01-28


New York whereas the defendapS
says he had no such domicile. DN.
fendant made no allegation Of fane
tending to prove his domicile else
where.
Assuming the difference to exist
between residence and domicile,
"Yet the place Of residence is the
domicile unless something is shown
to vary the ordinary and general
rule. Here the record shows resi-
dence in this state at the date Of
service. That residence is supposed
to be deemed the domicile unless
some facts are shown to negative
the inference. None such appear, and
we cannot presume or imagine them
in the face Of the facts shown from
which the natural Inference IS that
the defendants domicile was in this
state within which he resided
Residence Of Family or Married Man;
Weight and Sufficiency Of Such
Evidence to Show an Intent 10
Establish Domicile.
There Is also q presumption Of
fact that a married mans domicile
Is where his family lives ...." 8
rel 557.
"The domicile of married man
Is presumed to be at the place where
his wife or family resides, provided
the family residence is permanent
home and not mere temporary resi-
dence for transient purposes. >. The
removal of ones family is always an
important, if not essential, element
in a change Of domicile." 10 G. J.
433: and see IA CYC 86l.
1.-THE place where a married mans
family resides is generally to be
deemed his donicile." Story, Conf.
Sec. as.
Pearce vs.. State, Sneed 63
(Tenn); 60 Am. Dec.
Caddie vs.. Mann, lat Fed. 955.
Nugent VS.. Bates, 81 Ia. II; so NV
Is: 80 Am. Reps. lit.
Valentin VS.. Valentin, 81 N. J.
Equity. 400; 48 Att. 593.
Jones VS.. Riser, 160 Pac. So (okla)
Beauregaard VS.. Gunnison City, 48
Utah SIS: 160 Pac. 8l5.
State Savings Assn. vs.. Howard,
81 Fed. 433.
Cass vs.. Gunnison, 68 Mich. LAT;
SO NV IS.
Mcdowell VS.. friedman Bros.
Shoe Co., l35 Mo. Appeals ZIG; lis
NV 1923.
Berry VS.. Hull, N. Mex. 643; 80
Pac. 936.
In Re Oganesoff, 20 Fed. End, 978.
Gilman VS.. Gilman, So Maine, 165:
83 Am. Dec. 502.
Ringold VS.. Barley, 5 Md. 1856; 50
Am. Dec. l07.
| Pearce VS.. State
This case came up OH an alleged
improper charge Of jury in q trial
upon presentment for illegal vot-
ing. The court said:
1T Is true that the residence of a
married mans family is in general
to be deemed his domicile, because
they usually reside at his permanent
home; the place to which, whenever
he is absent for business or pleas
ure, he has the intention to return.
The residence Of the family is fact
from which the domicile may be pre-
sumed: and this is q presumption Of
fact, and not Of law. as was errone-
ously stated by the judge"
Beauregaard VS.. Gunnison City
This is an election contest. AS to
one Of the illegal votes challenged
the only evidence submitted as to
comicile was that the voter lived
with his family in another voting dis
trict. The vote was held illegal be-
cause Of the presumption arising from
this fact.
I'VE are Of the opinion that Henry
Knightson's domicile presumptively
was in Voting District No. l, where
his wife lived, and that the presump-
ton should prevail until the con-
trary Is shown by proper evidence"
Act Of Voting: Weight and Suffici-
! ency Of Such Evidence az Showing
an Intention to Establish . DOM
icile
Exercise Of the elective franchise
Is important to be considered" 10
leu 1876; See 9 rel 5e8.
Mccormick VS.. Mccormick, 129 Atl.
1912 IN. J.).
Harrison vs.. Harrison, 1T Md. GOT:
64 Atl. 81.
Collins vs.. City Of Ashland. 1l2
Fed. ITS.
shelton VS.. Tiffin, 8 Row. les: IL
Law Ed. 387.
i Hairston VS.. Hairston, p Miss. 7o5;
81 Am. Dec. $50.
] In Re rtterington, 100 Ia. 357:
l06 NV 76l.
Enfield VS.. Ellington, 81 Conn. $50:
"a Atl. 8l8.
See State VS.. Stoelting. So N. d.
1876: 306 NV 10l. Supra Is.
Harrison VS.. Harrison
This was an action for divorce de-
Tended on the ground of want Of jur-
isdiction In the court. The court
here construes the pertinent statute
bearing upon the question Of juris-
Idiction to require legal domicile.
THE better ruling seems to be that
1t (voting) Is an element. and strong
evidence, as to intention. It is not
conclusive, and, just as is permitted
to an individual to testify as to his
intent that intent may be shown
BY acts of the individual rather than
by his words" (59)
Shelton vs.. Tiffin
! This is an action to establish prior.
ity Of q lien on property. The juris-
diction Of the federal court was based
upon q diversity Of citizenship and
Is here challenged. This raises the
question Of legal domicile.
AN exercise Of the right of suf-
frage is conclusive on the subject"
(of showing an intention to change
domicile from one state to an
: other.)
In Re Titterington
"The deceased voted for a director
at one Of the school elections. This
Is, OF course, not conclusive: but It
Is everywhere recognized as q yalu-
able circumstance in determining the
question Of domicile."
!, Acts Of Taking Registration Oath:
Cases Giving Obitef Dicts state.
mens as to Weight and Sufficiency
The acts Of making an affidavit
!, and Of taking an oath % required hv
law when taken for the purpose 81