The Bismarck tribune., 1935-01-28

residence In another state. LegaI
residence consists OF act and inten.
ton, and when once fixed 1t requires
both act and intention to change 1t
His legal residence may be merely
ideal.
Upton vs.. Upton, 8 8. W. tKY)
al.
A person who goes from country to
country with no intention Of remain
ing, does not acquire residence, but
If he confines himself to one country
or locality though not fixing upon
some particular place, he can very
properly be said to be a resident Of
that country or locality. Residence
may therefore be In a particular spot
or a wide area. It may be applied
Ito "a house, precinct, ward, q
county. or a state"
I.auehammer VS.. Munter, q Ira,
$40.
The California statute defining
residence is the same as the North
Dakota statute. In Huston VS.. An
derson. 78 Pac. 626, this statute was
construed, and it was held that NOV
ing to new location without the
intention Of establishing a residence
In such new location did not operate
to change the residence Of the party.
The old location continued to be his
residence even though he may not
have had any house. room. or place
therein that he could call his home.
Same Peo VS.. Connell. % III. App.
285.
Sheehan VS.. Scott, 70 p. $50 (CalD
In Burke County VS.. Oakland. PIT
N. w. IN. D. 643, the administration
OF the poor laws of this state was in
volved. 1t was contended that de-
fendant was not a resident Of the
county in which he claimed relief as
an INDECENT person.
Union Of Act and Intent
The court referred to subdivision
2. Section IA. Compiled Laws, defin-
ing how residence can be changed,
namely: BY the union of act and in
tent. That moving from one place
to another with intent to abandon
the old residence and establishing a
residence at the new place is in law
a change Of residence.
| Conversely, without such intent
the old residence remains.
The fact Of voting in another town.
ship to that Of the township claimed
by the defendant to be his residence
was admitted He said he voted in
the other township because he hap
pened to be there at the time of elec-
ton. This was all the explanation
given, and 1t was accepted by the
court as satisfactory. It appeared
that defendants work in the town.
ship where he voted was seasonable,
during the time Of year when farm
work was done. The defendant had
voted at other times in the township
where he was claiming his residence,
and testified positively that he never
established residence anywhere
lelse.
The court held that in the light Of
this evidence the defendant had dis
proved any intention OF establish
ing a home outside Of the township
where he claimed it was In the pend
ing action.
1t will be noted that Section II OF
the statutes referred to by the court
in the above action, restates and re.
affirms as the statutory law OF this
state the general rules of law with
respect to residence. Among other
things D that residence Is a place
where one remains when not else
where for work or other special or
temporary purpose, (2) that there
can be only one residence, and (3)
a residence cannot be lost until an
other is gained.
Cites Fargo Case
In Gardner vs. Board Of Educa-
ton OF Fargo, 80 N. w. r. Oak. }
433, the facts were that plaintiff had
a farm nearby, but lived in Fargo
during the school year, sending his
children to the Fargo schools. The
contest arose over tuition, the Board
Of Education holding that plaintiff
was not a resident of Fargo, and
therefore not entitled to the free use
Of its schools for his children. This
ruling was sustained on appeal
under the evidence introduced in the
action. It appeared, among other
things, that plaintiff lived with his
family in his dwelling house on the
farm prior to the fall Of 1885. and
that was unquestionably his home
and place of residence. This being
established it became incumbent to
show change to Fargo, or abandon
ment, to the satisfaction Of the
court.
He had been renting house In
Fargo from the fall Of 1885, where