The Bismarck tribune., 1935-01-28
Relat0r Says Constitution Makes Noodle Ineligible

Qle IN
Hairston vs.. Hairston
THE place where q man carries
on his business or professional &C.
cupation and has q home or perma'
nent residence Is his domicile." (533)
Pickering vs.. Winch 81 Pac 1853
This was q will contest in which
deceased had residences In two states
but had his business affairs and
exercised political rights in Oregon
and had lived in the residence in
California for reasons Of health only
during the last few years Of life,
Held, Oregon was the domicile. The
residence in California was mere
temporary and for health reasons,
! The court said incidentally:
This intention necessary to estab-
lish a domicile) 1t IS true. may be In
ferred from circumstances, and the
residence may be Of such . charac-
ter and accompanied by such indices
Of q permanent home that the law
will apply to the facts q result con-
trary to the actual intention Of the
party. Thus, one cannot make q
permanent, fixed, commercial resi-
dence with all the surroundings Of q
permanent home in one place, and
domicile In another, by q mere men,
tai act"
Residence: Weight and Sufficiency
Of Such Evidence 70 Show m In
tent to Establish Domicile
"Domicile is presumed prima facie
to be at that place where the party
Is shown to be or where he is resi-
dent. This presumption controls un-
less rebutted by evidence determin.
ing his domicile in some other place
at that time. It shows that the bur-
den of proof is on the party who
claims that the domicile has been
changed" 9 rel 557.
THE place Of residence where
person actually lives is. prima facie
presumed to be his legal domicile
-" u9 G. J. 43D.
People vs.. Moir, 3o7 III. 100: 60
NE e05.
Hart vs.. Lindsey, II N. H. 235; ~
Am. Dec. 597.
Lowry vs.. Bradley, 80 Am. Dec. 142
(E. CO.
Anderson vs.. Watt, 1873 U. 8. eo4:
"a Law Ed. 1918.
Mitchell VS.. y. S. Il Wallace, $50:
% Law Ed. 584.
Eneis vs.. Smith. II How. 100: II
Law Ed. 3a8.
Shelton VS.. Tiffin, le How. 1853; IL
Law Ed. 387.
Beecher vs.. Common Council, 1l4
Mich, 22S; u NV 206.
Harrison vs.. Harrison, 81 Att. 81;
1T Md. GOT.
Hairston vs.. Hairston. ~ Mass. 704:
81 Am. Dec. $50.
Shepard VS.. Wright. ll3 N. Z. $50;
i 81 NE 724.
Collins vs.. City Of Ashland. liz
Fed. 173.
Mcdonald VS.. Flour Mills Co.. 81
Fed. SIT.
Graham VS.. Graham, . Fed. Is; 81
NV ~ (Supra 18.
Hart vs.. Lindsey 43 Am Dec. 507
In this case the defendant went to
another town for the apparent pur-
pose Of spending q definite time in
the pursuit Of his studies.
The place where . person lives
is taken to be his domicile, until
other facts establish the contrary,
II q person has actually removed to
another place with an intent Of re-
naming there for an indefinite time,
and has q place Of present domicile'
Notwithstanding he may entertain the
floating intention to return at some
time in the future" page 602)
Lowry VS.. Bradley
The question here was one Of
contested will. The decedent short.
~ before his death left South Caro-
lima and went to Alabama. The dec.
laration Of the decedent and the
prima facie presumption arising from
the fact Of residence in Alabama
caused the South Carolina court to
find decedent's residence was In Ala
bama.
| Prima Facie Evidence
"A persons being at q place says
Lord Thurlow, Bruce vs.. Bruce, 2 Bos
Pal. 230. note. is prinla facie evidence
that he is domiciled at that place
The actual place where he is says
Lord Rosslyn, In Bemifide vs.. john
ston, 3 Yes. 200, Is prima facie. (tc
a great many purposes) his domi'
cile, and says Sir John Nicholl. II
Stanley vs.. Bermos. Hagg. 373
prima facie he is domiciled where he
Is resident"
Anderson vs.. Watt
This was q foreclosure case brought
In federal court upon IN alleged div.
ersity Of citizenship. The question
was to determine the citizenship o.
the mortgagor, and the court held
contrary to the allegations Of the bill
that the mortgagor resided In New
York and not in Florida.
The place where q person lives L
taken to be his domicile until facts
adduced establish the contrary. >
F. 706. y. s. Rep.
Mitchell VS.. United States
"By the term domicile in its ordi.
mary acceptation IS meant the place
where q person lives and has hi
home. Story, Conf. L. Sec. H."
Ennis vs.. Smith
This was q case in which the viii
of the Revolutionary War figure
General Kosciusko. was contested
The question raised was Is to rest
dence Of decedeI1t.
Where q person lives, Is taker
prima facie to be his domicile. unit
other facts establish the contrary
j Getting the cases found in the quota.
ton taken from Lowry vs.. Bradley
labove, Pg. 438 Law Ed.)
Shelton VS.. Tiffin
Mortgage Was Involved
This was . contest involving thl
priority Of . mortgage brought int
the federal court by reason Of div
ersity Of citizenship.
Where an individual has residet
in q state for q considerable time
lbeing engaged in the prosecution o
business, he may well be presumed Il
he q citizen Of such state unless tn