It was held, however, in Tennessee, on a suit for divorce, that the acquisition of an actual home in Washington, by the petition: er, with the intention of remaining there for an indefinite time, countervailed declara tions of intention to return to Tennessee upon the happening of an uncertain .future event; Sparks v. Sparks, 114 Tenn. 666, 88 S. W. 173; so one who left a state for the pur pose of teaching school (the question arising as to the statute of limitations) ; Dignam v. Shaff, 51 Wash. 412, 98 Pac. 1113, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 996 ; Redfearn v. Hines, 123 Ga. 391, 51 S. E. 407.
The domicil of origin always remains in abeyance, as it were, to be resorted to the moment the domicil of choice is given up. If one leaves a domicil of choice, with intention of acquiring a new one, his domi cil of origin attaches the moment he leaves the former, and persists until he acquires the latter ; L. R. 1 Sc. App. 441; Marks v. Marks, 75 Fed. 321; Dicey, Dom. 92. This, however, can only be true of national, as dis tinguished from local domicil ; when a local domicil of choice is acquired, it certainly per sists until a new one is adopted.
Domicil by choice is that domicil which a person of capacity of his free will selects to be such.
Domicil is conferred in many cases by op eration of law, either expressly or conse quentially. The domicil of the husband is that of the wife ; Hanberry v. Hanberry, 29 Ala. 719 ; McAfee v. University, 7 Bush (Ky.) 135; Wingfield v. Rhea, 77 Ga. 84; Babbitt v. Babbitt, 69 Ill. 277 ; Mason v. Homer, 105 Mass. 116; Baldwin v. Flagg, 43 N. J. L. 495 ; 7 H. L. C. 390; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 11 Sup. Ct. 449, 34 L. Ed. 1078. A wo man on marriage takes the domicil of her husband, and a husband, if entitled to a di vorce, may obtain it though the wife be ac tually resident in a foreign state ; 2 Cl. & F. 488 ; Parrett v. Palmer, 8 Ind. App. 356, 35 N. E. 713, 52 Am. St. Rep. 479 ; Turner v. Turner, 44 Ala. 437 ; Sewall v. Sewall, 122 Mass. 162, 23 Am. Rep. 299 ; Cook v. Cook, 56 Wis. 195, 14 N. W. 33, 443, 43 Am. Rep. 706. But, where it is necessary for her to do so, the wife may acquire a separate domicil, which may be in the same jurisdiction ; Chee ver v. Wilson, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 108, 19 L. Ed. 604 ; Dutcher v. Dutcher, 39 Wis. 659 ; Gould v. Crow, 57 Mo. 204 ; Chapman v. Chapman,
129 Ill. 386, 21 N. E. 806 ; Barber v. Barber, 21 How. (U. S.) 582, 16 L. Ed. 226 ; contra, 2 Cl. & F. 488; Dicey, Dom. 104. She may rest on her husband's domicil for the purpose of obtaining a divorce ; Masten v. Masten, 15 N. H. 159 ; Williamson v. Parisien, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 389; ,Fickle v. Fickle, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 203 ; Person v. Person, 6 Humphr. (Tenn.) 148 ; McDermott's Appeal, 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 251. See Wood v. Wood, 54 Ark. 172, 15 S. W. 459; 30 Am. L. Rev. 604; DIVORCE.
A wife divorced a mend et thoro may ac quire a separate domicil so as to sue her hus band in the United States courts ; Barber v. Barber, 21 How. (U. S.) 582, 16 L. Ed. 226 ; so where the wife is deserted ; Moffatt v. Moffatt, 5 Cal. 280; 2 E. L. & Eq. 52; 2 Kent 573 ; but the right to do so springs from the necessity for its exercise; Hunt v. 'Hunt, 72 N. Y. 217, 28 Am. Rep. 129 ; Atherton v. Atherton, 155 N. Y. 129, 49 N. E. 933, 40 L. R. A. 291, 63 Am. St Rep. 650 ; Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 123, 19 L. Ed. 604 ; Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 26 Sup. Ct. 525, 50 L. Ed. 867, 5 Ann. Cas. 1. The wife of an insane person may change her domicil ; McKnight v. Dudley, 148 Fed. 204, 78 C. C. A. 162.
Where a husband and wife had an estab lished permanent residence In Minnesota, and the wife was compelled by her husband's threats to remove to Massachusetts, compli ance with his commands was held not to con stitute an abandonment of her domicil in Minnesota, though she remained in Massa chusetts several years ; Bechtel v. Bechtel, 101 Minn. 511, 112 N. W. 883, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1100 ; so a wife's absence from the city, after being deserted by her husband, without the intention of making her home elsewhere, was held not sufficient to change her domicil in a suit for divorce ; Humphrey v. Humphrey, 115 Mo. App. 361, 91 S. W. 405. Where the domicil of matrimony was in a particular state, and the husband abandoned his wife and went into another state to avoid his marital obligations, such other state did not become a new domicil of matrimony, and therefore was not to be treated as the ac tual or constructive domicil of the wife; Had dock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 26 Sup. Ct. 525, 50 L. Ed. 867, 5 Ann. Cas. 1.