The Bismarck tribune., 1935-01-28
Contends Governor
Cannot Meet Test
OF n. ID. Basic Law
Continued from Page six)

OA Ave- De 1O00A~ Ao"
Continued from Page six)
this manner Is the highest evidence
of intent to establish domicile. 10 Q.
j. 431 and 436. :
Chambers vs.. Hathaway, 1877 Cal.
a04: 200 Pac. 03l.
State vs.. stoelting. So N. D. 1856:
2o8 NV 10l (Supra l8,.
Chambers vs.. Hathaway
Appeal from the determination II,
q proceeding for the collection Of In
heritance tax.
Decree In favor Of their collection
In California reversed.
Appeal In this case was brought
upon the sole question Of whether
there was sufficient evidence to sus-
tain the holding Of the lower court
that the domicile Of the deceased
was In California. The facts were
that the deceased was q wealthy
man, and had business and home
IN Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as early rs
1884: That his wife died In 1899:
that he had gone to California for
several months Of each year after
1907; that he purchased q home In
California In 1912, when at the age
Of eighty years and retained his home
In Wisconsin.
The court then says:
1T Is apparent therefore, that the
facts make q case where person
has two residences, either Of which
might be his lawful residence accord
ing to his intention"
It Is then indicated In the opinion
that one evidence Of intention was
the declaration Of the deceased for
the purpose Of registering as voter
of California, as he was qualified to
do ct that time, II he intended that
California should be his domicile.
The form Of that declaration was an
affidavit made for the registration
authorities in which he stated that
his residence was in Pasadena, Cali
8ornia, for the required statutory pc.
riod Of time. The registration form
showed no vote was subsequently cast
by the deceased.
This affidavit constitutes . de-
claration by Finney (the decedent)
that at that time his residence was
In Southern Pasadena, and it must
be understood as q declaration that
that was his legal residence at that
time. II 1t had remained unexplain-
ed by him and there was no evidence
Of subsequent change Of intention,
this, Of course, would be sufficient
to uphold the finding Of the court
(which finding In the lower court
was that the decedents residence
was in California;.
Several subsequent declarations
show that this intention to establish
q domicile In California was subse-
quently changed, and the court here
held that the domicile Of the dece-
dent was In Wisconsin because of this
demonstration Of the fact Of his in
tention to again make Wisconsin his
domicile.
Declarations: Weight and Suffici-
ency Of Such Evidence ~ Indicated
the Intention Of Person to Estsb-
lish Domicile
Nelson VS.. Cass, ~ N. D. 357: l4e
INV SGT.
Graham vs.. Board Of Education, S
Oak. 259. 80 NV 433; Supra IL.
Mccarthy VS.. Thornton, 80 N. D.
651; l65 NV 499, Supra Is.
Graham vs.. Graham, 9 N. d. 8S. 81
NV a, Supra 20.
Declarations alone cannot prevail
unless borne out by facts. More
weight win be given to q persons
acts than to his declarations, and
when they are inconsistent the acts
will control" 10 G. J. al.
where. however, the declarations
Of = party are inconsistent with his
acts, they are not considered as high
class evidence 80. It has been held
that q change Of residence, clearly
manifested as matter OF law by acts,
cannot be defeated by q subsequent
declaration Of the person that he did
not intend his acts to have that ef-
feet" Q rel 558.
Declarations OF lndeterminate or
Floating Intentions to Return:
Sufficiency Of Such Intention 10
Show the Place Of Domicile
Although an intention to remain
tial In some decisions, an intention
to remain permanently as distinguish
ed from indefinitely, Is not necessary.
nor need there be an intent to make
the new place q permanent home for
the remainder Of ones life" 10 CT
405.
"When q person has actually re.
moved to another place. which n his
fixed present residence, with an in
tention Of remaining there for an
indefinite time, 1t becomes his
domicile, Notwithstanding he may
have . floating intention to return
to his former domicile at some future
and indefinite period. An intention
to return to the former domicile at
q remote and indefinite period will
not control, II other facts, which
constitute dosuicile, give the new resi-
dence the character Of q permanent
home or place Of abode" 10 CJ 407
IT . person has actually removed
to another place, with an intention
of remaining there for an indefinite
time, and as q place Of fixed present
domicile. 1t Is to be deemed his place
Of domicile. Notwithstanding he may
entertain floating intention to re-
turn at some future period" Story,
Conflicts Of Law (8th ed.), p. so.
y. 8. vs.. Chong. Sam. ~ Fed. 878.
Anderson VS.. Watt, l38 U. s. 706:
81 Law Ed. 1918.
Nelson VS.. Cass, ~ N. D. 357; l46
NV 537.
Sturgeon vs.. Korte. "a Ohio st. S25.
Berry vs.. Wilcox. a Neb. 90: 81
NV 24o.
Putnam vs.. johnson, 10 Mass. 4S8.
Klutts VS.. Jones. a N. M. 100; l58
Pac. 900.
Pedigo W. Grimes. li3 Ind. llS;
- NE TOO.
Brittenham VS.. Robinson, lS Ind.
A. 502; - NE 6l6.
Ludlow VS.. Wilbraham, 90 Mass. 587.
Palmer vs.. Hampden, 1872 Mass. 5ll:
65 NE 8l7.
state vs.. Davis. lls Mo. Ap. $50:
e03 SW 654.
Vale vs. Superior School Dist. IS
Neb. SIT; Is NV 035.
Valentine vs.. Valentine. 81 N. ].