A person must have a domicil for pur poses of taxation ; Thorndike v. City of Bos ton, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 242; Borland v. City 4f Boston, 182 Mass. 89, 42 Am. Rep. 424 ; Church v. Rowell, 49 Me. 367; for jurisdic tion ; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14, 23 Sup. Ct. 237, 47 L. Ed. 366; Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 175, 21 Sup. Ct. 551, 45 L. Ed. 804 ; Streitwolf v. Streitwolf, 181 U. S. 179, 21 Sup. Ct. 553, 45 L. Ed. 867; Ayer v. Weeks, 65 N. H. 248, 18 Atl. 1108, 6 L. R. A. 716, 23 Am. St. Rep. 37; for succession; Gilman v. Gilman, 52 Me. 165, 83 Am. Dec. 502 ; Merrill's Heirs v. Morrissett, 76 Ala. 433; Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N. Y. 556; for adminis tration; Hindman's Appeal, 85 Pa. 466; for pauper settlement ; Abington v. North Bridge water, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 177; for loyal char acter ; Desmare v. U. S., 93 U. S. 605, 23 L. Ed. 059 ; for homestead exemption ; Shep herd v. Cassiday, 20 Tex. 24, 70 Am. Dec. 372; for attachment ; Morgan v. Nunes, 54 Miss. 308; Hicks v. Skinner, 72 N. C. 1. A person can, however, have but one domicil at a time ; Desmare v. U. S., 93 U. S. 605, 23 L. Ed. 959 ; Shaw v. Shaw, 98 Mass. 158; Evans v. Payne, 30 La. Ann. 502; Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N. Y. 556; Abington v. North Bridgewater, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 170; but Cock burn (Nationality) says that it is quite pos sible for a person to have two domicils. See Morse, Citizenship 100. And it is said that a person may have both a civil and a com mercial domicil; Dicey, Confl. Laws 740.
A bachelor cannot claim the place where he takes his meals as his residence for vot ing purposes, when he keeps a business of fice and sleeping apartmentS in connection therewith in another place, where he spends most. of his time ; State v. Sayre, 129 Ia; 122, IAD N. W. 387, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 455, 113' Am. St. Rep. 452 ;' Behrensmeyer v. Kreitz, 135. I11. 591, 26 N. D. 704 (where an engineer had a room in one state and took his meals in another); Carter v. Putnam, 141 III. 138, 30 N. E. 681 (where an unmar ried man was in business in one town and took the greater number of his meals with his father, who lived in another, keeping part of his clothing in each place); Long hammer v. Munter, 80 Md. 518, 31 Atl. 300, 27 L. R. A. 330.
Where a house was located on the line between two towns, it was said by Shaw, C. J., that if it could be ascertained where the occupant usually slept, this would be a preponderating circumstance, and, in the ab sence of other proof, decisive ; Inhabitants of Abington v. Inhabitants of North Bridge water, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 170.
Domicil may be either national or domes tic. In deciding the question of national domicil, the point to be determined will be in which of two or more distinct nationali ties a man has his domicil. In deciding the matter of domestic domicil, the question is in which subdivision of the nation does the person have his domicil. Thus, whether a pprson is domiciled in England or France would be a question of national domicil, whether in Norfolk or Suffolk county, a question of domestic domicil. The distinc
tion is to be kept in mind, since the rules for determining the two domicils, though fre qUently, are not necessarily, the same ; see 2 Kent 449; Story, Confl. Laws § 39 ; Westl. Priv. Int. Law 15 ; Wheat. Int. Law 123.
The Romanists and civilians seem to at tach about equal importance to the place of business and of residence as fixing the place of domicil; Pothier, Introd. Gen. Gout. d'Orlean,e, c. 1, art. 1, § 8; Story, Conii. Laws § 42. This may go far towards reconciling the discrepancies of the common law and civil law as to what law is to govern in re gard to contracts.
Legal residence, inhabitancy, and domicil are generally used as synonymous; Isham v. Gibbons, 1 Bradt Surr. (N. Y.) 70; Del .Hoyo v. Brundred, 20 N. J. L. 328; Bartlett v. Brisbane, 2 Rich. (S. 0.) 489 ; Moore v. Wilkins, 10 N. H. 452 ; Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. C. C. 555, Fed. Cas. No. 3,193; Crawford v. Wilson, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 505; Holmes v. Greene, 7 Gray (Mass.) 299; Church v. Grossman, 49 Ia. 447; but much depends on the Connection and purpose; In re Thompson, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 43; Lyman v. Fiske, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 231, 28 Am. Dec. 293; Inhabitants of Exeter• v. Inhabitants of Brighton, 15 Me. 58; "residence" has a more restricted meaning than "domicil ;" Chariton County v. Moberly, 59 Mo. 238; Foster v. Hall, 4 Humph. (Tenn.)' 346 ; Borland v. Bos ton, 182 • Mass. 89, 42 Am. Rep. 424. So also in insolvency statutes; Cobb v. Rice, 130 Mass: 231; those relating to administration and distribution; White v. Tennant, 31 W. Va. 790, 8 S. E. 596, 13 Am. St. Rep. 896; testamentary matters; In re Zerega's Will, 20 N. Y. Supp. 417; eligibility for public office; People v. Platt, 50 Hun 454, 3 N. Y. Supp. 367; attachment statutes ; Labe v. Brauss, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 255; and mat ters of jurisdiction; De Meli v. De Meli, 120 N. Y. 485, 24 N. E. 996, 17 Am. St. Rep. 652; Bradley v. Fraser, 54 Ia. 289, 6 N. W. 293 r Penfield v. R. Co.. 29 Fed. 494. Within divorce statutes, residence has been construed as equivalent to domicil; Graham v. Graham, 9 N. D. 88, 81 N. W. 44; Downs v. Downs, 23 App. D. C. 381; Hinds v. Hinds, 1 Ia. 36; but it must be an actual residence; Hamill v. Talbott, 81 Mo. App. 210. Besides mere bodily presence with in the state, there must be the • present bona fide purpose of abiding there indefinitely as a home; Graham v. Graham, 9 N. D. 88, 81 N. W. 44 ; mere length of time during which a person. has lived in a particular locality is not controlling ; and if he remain there longer than the period of. time required to give him a legal residence, but without any intention of making it his permanent place of residence, he does not become a resident thereof ; Sylvester v. Sylvester, 109 Ia. 401, 80 N. W. 547.