Proof of domicil does not depend upon any particular fact, but upon whether all the facts and circumstances taken together tend to establish the fact ; Inhabitants of Abington v. Inhabitants of North Bridge water, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 170; Appeal of Hind man, 85 Pa. 466. Engaging in business and voting in a particular place are evidence of domicil there; Myr. Prob. Cal. 237; voting in a place is evidence, though not conclu sive; Hayes v. Hayes, 74 Ill. 312 ; Inhabitants of East Livermore v. Inhabitants of Farm ington, 74 Me. 154 ; Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 Conn. 279, 95 Am. Dec. 237 ; Smith v. Croom, 7 Fla. 81; Hewes v. Baxter, 48 La. Ann. 1303, 20 South. 701, 36 L. R. A. 531. That it will be given decisive weight, see Wolf v. McGavock, 23 Wis. 518; that it will turn the scale in a case where a man has two places of residence at different times of the year, see Hairston v. Hairston, 27 Miss. 704, 61 Am. Dec. 530 ; Chariton County v. Moberly, 59 Mo. 238. The mere act of registration as a voter is not conclusive as to change of resi dence ; Mallard v. Bank, 40 Nebr. 784, 59 N. W. 511; but see Fulham v. Howe, 60 Vt. 351, 14 Atl. 652, apparently contra; is a circum stance to be considered with others; Lyman v. Fiske, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 231, 38 Am. Dec. 293 ; so of a poll tax ; Chase v, Chase, 66 N. H. 588, 29 Atl. 553 ; payment of taxes ; so is the execution of one's will in accord ance with the laws of a particular place ;. Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N. Y. 556 ; attending a particular church ; Fulham v. Howe, 62 Vt. 386, 20 Atl. 101. But the ownership of real estate in a place not coupled with residence therein is of no value; Price v. Price, 156 Pa. 617, 27 Atl. 291; Holliman's Heirs v. Peebles, 1 Tex. 673. Declaring an intent to become a citizen is not sufficient to prove an intention to adopt a domicil in the place where the declaration is made ; Bremme's Estate, 13 Pa. C. C. R. 177. Declarations made at the time of change of residence are evidence of a permanent change of domicil, but a person cannot, by his own declara tions, make out a case for himself ; Doyle v. Clark, 1 Flipp. 536, Fed. Cas. No. 4,053 ; Viles v. City of Waltham, 157 Mass. 542, 32 N. E. 901, 34 Am. St. Rep. 311; Ayer v. Weeks, 65 N. H. 248, 18 Atl. 1108, 6 L. R. A. 716, 23 Am. St. Rep. 37 ; but see as to the latter, L. R. 2 P. & M. 435. Declarations of the party are admissible to prove domicil ; Gundlin v. Packet Co., 6 Misc. 620, 26 N. Y. Supp. 73 ; Hulett v. Hulett, 37 Vt. 586; Reeder v. Hol comb; 105 Mass. 94 ; Rucker v. Bolles, 80 Fed. 504, 25 C. C. A. 600 ; Kemna v. Brockhaus, 5 Fed. 762, 10 Biss. 128; but acts are said to be more important than words ; Firth v. Firth, 50 N. J. Eq. 137, 24 Atl. 916.
A finding that a person intended to fix his domicil in the city wherein he was taxed for personal property was sustained on evi dence that he had actually resided there for four years and had built an expensive house with the evident 'intention of making it his permanent home ; and this against his own testimony as to his intention ; Beecher v. Common Council of Detroit, 114 Mich. 228, 72 N. W. 206.
Domicil is said to be of three kinds, domicil of origin, or by birth, domicil by choice, and domicil by operation of law. The place of birth is the' domicil by birth if at that time it is the domicil of the parents; 2 Hagg. Eccl. 405; Hardy v. De Leon, 5 Tex. 211. See Sasportas v. De La Motta, 10 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 38. If the parents are on a jour ney, the actual domicil of the parents will generally be the place of domicil; 5 Ves. 750; Westl. Priv. Int. Law 17. Children of
ambassadors ; 14 Beay. 441; 31 L. J. 24, 391; and consuls ; L. R. 1 Sc. App. 441; 4 P. D. 1; and children born on seas, take the domleil of their parents ; Story, Confi. Laws § 48.
The domicil of an illegitimate child is that of the mother ; 23 L. J. Ch. 724; Inhabitants of Houlton v. Inhabitants of Lubec, 35 Me. 411; Inhabitants of Blackstone v. Inhab itants of Seekonk, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 75; but it has been thought better to "regard the fa ther who acknowledges his illegitimate chil dren, or who is adjudged to be such by the law, as imparting his domicil' to such chil dren ;" Whart. Confi. L. 37 ; L. R. 1 Sc. App. 441; see Westl. Priv. Int. Law 272, where it is said that the place of birth of a child whose parents are unknown, is its dom icil ; if that is unknown, the place where it is found. The domicil of a legitimate child is that of its father; L. R. 1 P. & D. 611; In habitants of Freetown v. Inhabitants of Taun ton, 16 Mass. 52 ; Lacy v. Williams, 27 Mo. 280 ; Kennedy v. Ryall, 67 N. Y. 379 ; Dresser v. Illuminating Co., 49 Fed. 257; Kelly v. Garrett, 67 Ala. 304 ; 2 Hagg. Ecd. 405; Blu menthal v. Tannenholz, 31 N. J. Eq. 194; Desesbats v. Berquier, '1 Binn. (Pa.) 349, 2 Am. Dec. 448 ; 5, Ves. 786 ; see De Jarnett v. Harper, 45 Mo. App. 415. Westlake (int. Law) maintains that a posthumous child takes its mother's domicil ; but see Whart. Confl. Laws § 35. The domicil by birth of a minor continues to be his domicil till chang ed ; Overseers of Paterson Tp. v. Overseers of Byram Tp., 23 N. J. L. 394; Hiestand v. guns, 8 Blackf., (Ind.) 345, 46 Am. Dec. 481. See Dresser v. Illuminating Co., 49 Fed. 257. It changes with that of the father ; Allgood v. Williams, 92 Ala. 551, 8 South. 722; La-, mar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, 5 Sup. Ct. 221, 28 L. Ed. 751; even though there was an agreement between the parents upon their separation that the mother should have the control of the child ; Lanning v. Gregory, 100 Tex. 310, 99 S. W. 542, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 690, 123 Am. St. Rep. 809.
A student does not change his domicil by residence at college ; Granby v. Amherst, 7 Mass. 1; Fry's Election Case, 71 Pa. 302, 10 Am. Rep. 698 ; Sanders v. Getchell, 76 Me. 158, 49 Am. Rep. 606 ; Hart v. Lindsey, 17 N. H. 235, 43 Am. Dec. 597 ; and a prisoner removed from his domicil for temporary im prisonment does not acquire a new domicil; Barton v. Barton, 74 Ga. 761; Young v. Pol lak, 85 Ala. 439, 5 South. 279; Topsham v. Lewiston, 74 Me. 237, 43 Am. Rep. 584; or a convict for a long term ; Topsham v. Lew iston, 74 Me. 237, 43 Am. Rep. 584; or a fugitive from justice though intending never to return ; Cobb v. Rice, 130 Mass. 231; but see Young v. Pollak, 85 Ala. 439, 5 South. 279. A change of residence for purposes of health does not generally establish a new domicil ; Ex parte Blumer, 27 Tex. 734 ; Still v. Woodville, 38 Miss. 646. Absence in the service of the government does not necessa rily affect the domicil ; Hannon v. Grizzard, 89 N. C. 115 ; Dennis v. State, 17 Fla. 389 ; In re Town of Highlands, 22 N. Y. Supp. 137; depending, of course, on the intention of the party; Darragh v. Bird, 3 Or. 229; Wood v. Fitzgerald, id. 568 ; Mooar v. Har vey, 128 Mass. 219. A diplomatic representa tive residing abroad does not change his dom icil; Cora. v. Jones, 12 Pa. 365 ; or a con sul ; Wooldridge v. Wilkins, 3 How. (Miss.) 360; or one in the military or naval service ; Brewer v. Linnaeus, 36 Me. 428; Mooar v. Harvey, 128 Mass. 219 ; nor a sailor absent on duty ; Hailet v. Bassett, 100 Mass. 167.