Easterling v. Farrell

12 S.W.2d 889, 178 Ark. 937, 1929 Ark. LEXIS 410
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 21, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 S.W.2d 889 (Easterling v. Farrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Easterling v. Farrell, 12 S.W.2d 889, 178 Ark. 937, 1929 Ark. LEXIS 410 (Ark. 1929).

Opinion

Kirby, J.

The undisputed testimony shows that the deceased, after his marriage, had established his home at McGehee, in Desha County, where he and his 'wife lived and kept house for four years, and where his work as fireman on the railroad required his residence, and where his membership in the order of locomotive firemen was. kept until his death. He went down into Louisiana later, following his occupation of a railroad fireman, but never lived with his wife, who had abandoned him, nor established a home there.

The fact that deceased, after leaving MoGehee, was down in Louisiana following his occupation of a railroad fireman, would not change his domicile or residence, under the circumstances of this case, from MoGehee, in Desha County, where it had been established, it not being shown that he had established a home or residence in Louisiana except as indicated. Crone v. Cooper, 43 Ark. 552; State Life Insurance Co. v. Ford, 101 Ark. 521, 142 S. W. 863; Wheat v. Smith, 50 Ark. 266, 7 S. W. 161.

The testimony shows conclusively that deceased had established his' home and residence with his wife at McGehee, in Desha County, where he worked and remained for four years after his marriage, necessarily showing am abandonment of any home or residence he might have had theretofore in Chicot County, and, such being the case, with letters of administration issued on his estate in that county, where the residence was shown to have been established, the burden of proof was correctly declared by the court to be upon the appellant, who attacked the legality of the issuance of letters of administration to appellee on the ground that his intestate was not a resident of Desha County, where the letters were issued.

The verdict of the jury is amply supported by the testimony, and the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shelton v. Shelton
23 S.W.2d 629 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 S.W.2d 889, 178 Ark. 937, 1929 Ark. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/easterling-v-farrell-ark-1929.