The term citizenship ordinarily conveys a distinct idea from that of domicil; State v. Adams, 45 Ia. 99, 24 Am. Rep. 760; but it is often construed in the sense of domicil; Mor ris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 9 Sup. Ct. 289, 32 L. Ed. 690 ; Comitis v. Parkerson, 56 Fed. 556, 22 L. It. A. 148.
Two things must concur to establish dom fact of residence and the intention of remaining. These two must exist or must have existed in combination; State v. Hal lett, 8 Ala. 159 ; Crawford v. Wilsoni 4 Barb.
(N. Y.) 504 ; Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. (U. S.) 163, 12 L. Ed. 387 ; Lyman v. Fiske, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 231, 28 Am. Dec. 293 ; Hairston v. Hairston, 27 Miss. 704, 61 Am. Dec. 530 ; Leach v. Pillsbury, 15 N. H. 137 ; City of Hartford v. Champion, 58 Conn. 268, 20 Atl. 471. There must have been an actual resi dence ; Roosevelt v. Kellogg, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 208; Hennen v. Hennen, 12 La. 190 ; Des esbats v. Berquier, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 349, 2 Am. Dec. 448. The character of the residence is of no importance ; Inhabitants of. Waterbor ough v. Inhabitants of Newfield, 8 Greenl. (Me.) 203; Bradley v. Lowry, Speers, Eq. (S. C.) 3, 39 Am. Dec. 142 ; 5 E. L. & Eq. 52 ; Verret v. Bonvillain, 33 La. Ann. 1304 ; and if it has once existed, mere temporary ab sence will not destroy it, however long con tinued; 7 Cl. & F. 842; Sherwood v., Judd, Bradt Surr. (N. Y.) 267 ; Boyd v. Beck, 29 Aia. 703 ; McIntyre v. Chappell, 4 Tex. 137; Inhabitants of Knox v. Inhabitants of Waldoborough, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 455; Shattuck v. Maynard, 3 N. H. 123 ; Fain v. Crawford, 91 ,Ga. 30, 16 S. E. 106; Chariton County v. Moberly, 59 Mo. 238; Ross v. Ross, 103 Mass. 576; as in the case of a soldier in the army ; Inhabitants of Brewer v. Inhabitants of Lin naeus, 36 Me. 428; Crawford v. Wilson, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 522. And the law favors the presumption of a continuance of domicil ; 5 Yes. 750; President, etc., of Harvard Col lege v. Gore, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 370 ; White v. Brown, 1 Wall. Jr. 217, Fed. Cas. No. 17,538; Chaine v. Wilson, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 673; Hood's Estate, 21 Pa. 106 ; Ferguson v. Wright, 113 N. C. 537, 18 S. E. 691. The original domicil continues till it is fairly Changed for another ; 5 Madd. 232, 370 ; Jen nison v. Hapgood, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 77; State v. Hallett, 8 Ala. 159 ; Layne v. Pardee, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 232 ; Holliman's Heirs v. Pee bles, 1 Tex. 673 ; Burnham v. Rangeley, 1 Woodb. & M. 8, Fed. Cas. No. 2,176 ; Inhabi tants of Exeter v. Inhabitants of Brighton, 15 Me. 58; Baird v. Byrne, 3 Wall. Jr. 11, Fed. Cas. No. 757; and revives on an inten tion to return ; 1 Curt. Eccl. 856 ; Frost v. Brisbin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 11, 32 Am. Dec. 423; The Venus, 8 Cra.. (U. S.) 278, 3 L. Ed. 553; 3 C. Rob. 12 ; The Friendschaft, 3 Wheat. (IL S.) 14, 4 L. Ed. 322 ; State v. Hal lett, 8 Ala. 159 ; Miller's Estate, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 312, 24 Am.. Dec. 345 ; The Ann Green, 1 Gall. 275, Fed. Cas. No. 414 ; Catlin v. Gladding, 4 Mas. 308, Fed. Cas. No. 2,520; L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 44 ; In re Wrigley, 8 Wend.
(N. Y.) 134. This principle of revival, how ever, is said not to apply where both domi cils are domestic ; 5 Madd. 379 ; Am. Lead. Gas. 714. Where a young man left the state of his original domicil to go to another state to fill a definite engagement for a year and for his health, and at the end of such en gagement, returned to the domicil of his origin, it was held that if he had ever re nounced his domicil of origin, he had regain ed it by reverter, it not appearing that' he had a domicil elsewhere ; Mayo v. Society, Miss. 590, 15 South. 791.
Mere taking up residence is not sufficient, unless there be an intention to abandon a former domicil ; Bradley v. Lowry, Speers Eq. (S. C.) 1, 39 Am. Dec. 142 ; 6 M. & W. 511; Inhabitants of Wayne v. Inhabitants of Greene, 21 Me. 357 ; Putnam v. Johnson, 10 Mass. 488 ; 1 Curt. Eccl. 856 ; People v. Per alta, 4 Cal. 175 ; Bartlett v. City of New York, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 44 ; Price v. Price, 156 Pa. 617, 27 Atl. 291; State v. Dayton, 77 Mo. 678 ; nor is it even prima facie evidence of domicil when the nature of the residence either is inconsistent with, or rebuts the pre sumption of the existence of an animus ma nendi; Dicey, Dom. Rule 19 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 212.' Nor is intention of constituting domicil alone, unless .accompanied by some acts in furtherance of such intention ; Chaine v. Wilson, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 673 ; Ringgold v. Barley, 5 Md. 186, 59 Am. Dec. 107; Wright v. Boston, 126 Mass. 161; Carey's Appeal, 75 Pa. 201; Morris v. Gilmer, 129. U. S. 328, 9 Sup. Ct. 289, 32 L. Ed. 690. A subsequent intent may be grafted on a temporary resi dence ; 2 C. Rob. 322. Removal to a place with an intention of remaining there for an indefinite period and as a place of fixed present domicil, constitutes domicil, though there be a floating intention, to return ; 2 B. & P. 228; 3 Hagg. Eccl. 374. Both inhabit ancy and intention are to a 'great extent matters of fact, and may be gathered from slight indications ; Pearce v. State, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 63, 60 Am. Dec. 135 ; Berry v. Hull, 6 N. AL 643, 30 Pac. 936. A statute as to ac quiring a residence will be strictly construed, and where a person spends part of his time in one state and the other part at his home in another, and where he has no business in the former but appears to be gaining a resi dence for the purpose of divorce only, he is not a bona fide resident ; Albee v. Albee, 43 Ill. App. 370. The place where a person lives is presumed to be the place of domicil until facts establish the contrary ; 2 B. & P. 228, n. ; 2 Kent 532 ; Shepard v. Wright, 113 N. Y. 582, 21 N. E. 724. A decedent is presumed to have been domiciled at the place where he died ; King v. U. S., 27 Ct. Cl. 529 ; see 5 Ves. Jr. 750 ; but where he was a non-resi dent of the state for many years and until within two months prior to his death, the presumption is that be was a non-resident at the time of his death ; Price .v. Price, 156 Pa. 617, 27 Atl. 291.