In re Estate of Noon

Good Law
3 Coffey 352
Superior Court of California, County of San FranciscoApril 12, 1894No. 14,380California1,439 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Coffey, J.

Section 1294 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

Residence depends upon intention as well as fact: See People v. Peralta, 4 Cal. 175 .

A person’s residence in a place is presumptive evidence of domicile: Johnson v. Merchandise, 2 Paine, 601 , Fed. Cas. No. 747; Ryal v. Kennedy, 40 N. T. Sup. Ct. (8 Jones & S.) 347.

The residence which goes to constitute a domicile need not be long in point of time.

“If the intention of permanently residing in a place exists, a residence in pursuance of that intention, however short, will establish a domicile”: 5 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 863; Jacob on Domicile, sec. 137.

“On questions of domicile, a party’s declarations in authentic acts, though admissible against him, are not conclusive, but may be disproved when not causes of the contract”: Davis v. Binion, 5 La. Ann. 248 .

The word “residence” being commonly employed in the sense of sojourn, a recital in a will that the testator is re *354 siding at a place named is not controlling on the question of domicile: Tucker v. Field, 5 Redf. (N. T.) 139.

Jacob on Domicile, section 150, says: "The intention requisite for a change of domicile is: (1.) Intention completely to abandon the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.