The Bismarck tribune., 1935-01-28
Cosideration of the Statutes With
Reference to Residential Require

Cosideration Of the Statutes With
Reference to Residential Require
mentS
| Section 10 OF the Political Code
Eligibility to Office: Every elector
is eligible to office for which he is
an elector, except when otherwise
specially provided; ard no person Is
eligible who is not such an elector.'
! Divorce-Section 1895 requires that
the plaintiff be "a resident OF the
state for twelve months next preced-
ing"
Homestead-Section 56o5: lin which
/, the homestead claimant resides
! Limitations Of Actions: Section
1884: land resided out Of this state
and remained continuously absent
| therefronl.'
Paupers: Sections 1900 and 1901.
Venue: Section 74l7.
Rules for Determining Residence
Section il, Political Code.
L. will be noted that subdivision l
OF this section defines a residence
as follows:
! 1t is the place where one remains
when not called elsewhere 70. labor
or other special or Temporary pur-
poses, and TO which, he returns in
seasons OF repose.'
Subdivision Z: The residence can
be changed only by the union of act
and intent
Mccarthy VS.. Thornton, 80 ND 55l; !;
les NV 499
Gardner vs.. Board, n. D. 25e; SO
NV 433
which defines the domicile as fol-
lows:
"A domici!e is that place In which
his hab!tation is fixed without the
present intention of removing there
from" Story, Conf. Laws, 4l-43.
Il vii! be observed that under the
various constitutional provisions and
the statutory provisions that the
words residence" or resided are
obviously used for distinct purposes
and that their meaning cannot Ee
ascertained without due weight and
consideration being given to the sta
/ t,lte and constitutional provisions In
which they are used and the purpose
intended to be effected.
| Illustration of North Dakota Cases
Upon the Question of Domicile and
Residence.
| Gardner VS.. Board Of Education,
ND 359; SO NV 433.
This was a mandamus proceeding
to have a petitioners children ad-
mitted to attendance at school with
out payment OF non-residence fees.
The lower court ruled against the
petitioner.
Stating that the sole question was
as to where the residence Of the COM
plainant was. the court listed the
following facts bearing upon the
question:
In 1885 Gardner had and still had
at the time OF the suit a large and
well stocked and implemented farm
at Ernest, North Dakota: since the
1885 term OF school and until the
trial in January, 1888. the plaintiff
had during each OF the intervening
terms Of school brought his children
to Fargo, putting them in attendance
at schools In Fargo. He rented a
house at the commencement of each
term Of school and at the termina-
ton Of the school term he gave up
the house and returned with the
children to the farm, returning again
to Fargo in the fall. Upon each oc-
casion the house, furniture, two
horses and two COWS were transferred
from the farm to Fargo and returned
to the farm with each change of re-
sidence.
| Gardner had no permanent busi-
ness in Fargo, admittedly the pur-
pose Of coming to Fargo was to put
the children In better schools than
could be found In Ernest.
The court specifically pointed out
that in this case the words residence
and domicile have been used synony-
mously, because both sides tacitly as
sumed it to be so.
The court held that the domicile
Of the complainant was at the farm
in Ernest.
Domicile Was on Farm
IT upon this testimony the trial
court had found appellant to be duly
domiciled In Fargo. 1t would, We
think, have given undue weight to
appellants naked declaration claim
ing Fargo as his domicile." page
434).
The plaintiff had not by intent CT
in fact changed his residence te
Fargo:
In cases much closer than the
one at bar 1t has been held that the
lexnreSsiOn Of choice N. election, h,