Foss v. Foss

58 N.H. 283
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedMarch 5, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 58 N.H. 283 (Foss v. Foss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Foss v. Foss, 58 N.H. 283 (N.H. 1878).

Opinion

*284 Allen, J.

To entitle the court to take jurisdiction of a cause of divorce, the libellant must have an actual bona fide residence.- in the state. Fellows v. Fellows, 8 N. H. 160; Greenlaw v. Greenlaw, 12 N. H. 202; Batchelder v. Batchelder, 14 N. H. 380; Payson v. Payson, 34 N. H. 520. And the cause of divorce, if arising out of the state, must have been at a time when the domicil of the libellant was in the state. Clark v. Clark, 8 N. H. 21; Frary v. Frary, 10 N. H. 61; Smith v. Smith, 12 N. H. 80; Kimball v. Kimball, 13 N. H. 225; Hopkins v. Hopkins, 35 N. H. 474; Leith v. Leith, 39 N. H. 20, 32, 33. If the domicil of the libellant, at the time the alleged causes of divorce took place, was in New Hampshire, as he claims, the court has jurisdiction of the cause ; otherwise, not.

The place of one’s domicil is the place of his home. Phil. Law of Dom. 11. In the ordinary acceptation, it is where he lives and has his home. Story Confl. of Laws 41. It is the place in which, both in fact and intent, the home of a person is established, without any existing purpose of mind to return to a former home. It is the place which the fact and the intent, combining with one another, gravitate to and centre in as the home. 2 Bishop Mar. and Div. 118. To acquire a domicil, residence and the intention to make it the home must concur. Once acquired, actual residence is not indispensable for its retention ; it may be retained by an intention not to change it. Hart v. Lindsey, 17 N. H. 235; Leach v. Pillsbury, 15 N. H. 138. An existing domicil is not changed or lost by a departure from it for a temporary purpose, or with an intention of returning. Bump v. Smith, 11 N. H. 48.

The circumstances stated in the case are evidence from which the domicil can be found, upon the well settled principles applicable to the subject, and the fact must be determined at the trial term.

Case discharged.

Bingham, J., did not sit.

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

Related

Waterfield v. Meredith Corp.
20 A.3d 865 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2011)
Bisson v. University of New Hampshire
578 A.2d 320 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1990)
Bailey v. Bailey
40 A.2d 581 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1945)
Sweeney v. District of Columbia
113 F.2d 25 (D.C. Circuit, 1940)
Kerby v. Charlestown
99 A. 835 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1916)
Norris v. Norris
15 A. 19 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 N.H. 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foss-v-foss-nh-1878.