There are cases, however, where a pre sumption of death may be raised from even a shorter absence; Waite v. Coaracy, 45 Minn. 159, 47 N. W. 537 ; Cambrelleng v. Purtcrn, 125 N. Y. 610, 26 N. E. 907: Fidelity Mut. Life Assn. v. Mettler, 185 U. S. 308, 22 Sup. Ct. 662, 46 L. Ed. 922; and while seven years is the period in which the pre sumption of continued life ceases, yet this period may be shortened by proof of such facts and circumstances as, submitted to the test of experience, would produce a con viction of death within .a shorter period ; Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 71 Fed. 258, 18 C. C. A. 107 ; Davie v. Briggs, 97 U. S. 628, 24 L. Ed. 1086; Hyde Park v. Canton, 130 Mass. 505; Cox v. Ellsworth, 18 Neb. 664, 26 N. W. 460, 53 Am. Rep. 827.
Though there is controversy on the point, the, better opinion is that there is no pre sumption as to the time of death ; Davie v. Briggs, 97 U. S. 628, 24 L. Ed. 1086; Chamb. Best Ev. 305; 2 Brett, .Com. 941; 2 M. & W. 894 ; and the onus is on the person case requires proof, of death at a particular period ; Howard v. State, 75 Ala. 27; White ley v. Assurance Society, 72 Wis. 170, 39 N. W. 369 ; Spencer v. Roper, 35 N. C. 333; 8 U. C. Q. B. 291. It seems that such contin ued absence for seven years from the particu tar state of his. residence, without showing an absence from the U. S., is sufficient; Newman v. Jenkins, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 515; Innis v. Campbell, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 373; Spurr T. Trim ble, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 278; Wambaugh v. Schenk, 2 N. J. L. 229 ; Woods v. Woods' Adm'rs, 2 Bay (S. C.) 476; and to establish presumption of death, the last known place of residence is the place to look for the person ; Morrison's Estate, 183 Pa. 155, 38 Atl. 895 ; but the statutory presumption of the death of a person will not be received until all reasonable doubt of his death: at a given time, is removed; Smith v. Combs, 49 N. J. •Eq. 420, 24 Atl. 9. There are cases, however, in which an absence of seven years will not raise a presumption of death with out issue, as where it is probable that the failure to communicate With friends is in tentional; In re Taylor, 66 Hun 626, 20 N. Y. Supp. 960; Doe v. Stockley, 6 Houst. (Del.) 447, where the court refused to in struct the jury that there presump tion of the death of an entire family after an absence of forty-five or fifty years. And the statutory presumption of death after seven years does not apply to children of tender years incapable of voluntary absence or concealment ; Manley v. Pattison, 73 Miss. 417, 19 South. 236, 55 Am. St. Rep. 543. As to this presumption generally, see 8 Eng. Rul. Ca s. 512.
The common-law presumption of death aft er a lapse of years is not sufficient in a crim inal prosecution to prove that the wife was unmarried ; People v. Weinstock, 140 N. Y. Supp. 453. See ESCHEAT ; ABSENTEE, as to the power of the legislitture to provide for the administration of estates of persons ab sent and presumed to be dead.
The record of the probate of a will is not competent evidence of death except where all parties to a subsequent action were also parties before the surrogate ; Carroll v. Ca,r roll, 60 N. Y. 121, 19 Am. Rep. 144, and note. But it is held that where a foreign court of competent jurisdiction has made a, grant of administration on the presumption of death, such grant may be accepted by the court of probate as sufficient proof ; [1892] Prob. 255.
Letters of administration were held to be evidence of death ; Ruoff v. Bank, 40 Misc. 549, 82 N. Y. Supp. 881; Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Timm, 93 Ind. 158. So is a certificate of the register of births and deaths; Suc cession of Jones, 12 La. Ann. 397.
A letter contained in an envelope request ing a return to the writer, if not called for, and showing the post office stamp that it had bben returned to the writer, is admissible as affording ground for an inference, more or less strong, of the death of the addressee.; Hurlburt v. Hurlburt's Estate, 63 Irt..667, 22 Atl. 850.
Questions of difficulty have arisen where several persons, respectively entitled to in herit from one another, happen to perish all together by the same event, such as a ship wreck, a battle, or a conflagration, without any possibility of ascertaining who died first. In such cases the French civil code and the civil code of Louisiana lay down rules (the latter copying from the former) which are deduced from the probabilities re sulting from the strength, age, and differ ence of sex of the parties.
If those thus perishing together were un der fifteen, the eldest shall be, presumed the survivor. If they were all above sixty, the youngest shall be presumed the survivor. If some were under fifteen and others above sixty, the former shall be presumed the sur vivors. If those who have perished together had completed the age of fifteen and were under sixty, the male shall be presumed the survivor where the ages are equal or the difference does not exceed one year. If they were of the same sex, that presumption shall be admitted which opens the succession in the order of nature ; and thus the younger must be presumed to have survived the elder. French Civ. Code, arts. 720-722; La. Civ. Cope, arts. • 930-933 ; Hollister v. Corder°, 76 Cal. 649, 18 Pac. 855.