Trump v. Barbara · ¶180

A person was not domiciled in a place simply because he was temporarily present or born there. A person’s presence in a place was merely “primâ facie” evidence that he was domiciled there. Bruce v. Bruce, 2 B. & P. 229, 231, 126 Eng. Rep. 1251, 1252 (C. P. 1790); accord, e.g., Story on Conflict of Laws 45. Because a person’s temporary visit to a place did not change his domicile, persons who were temporarily present in a place were regarded by the law not as “subjects,” but as “strangers.” The Venus, 8 Cranch, at 278. Accordingly, a person’s “place of birth” was only “primâ fa cie evidence of domicil.” President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Gore, 22 Mass. 370, 375 (1827); accord, e.g., Over seers of Readington v. Overseers of Tewksbury, 2 N. J. L. 289 (1807) (“The place of the birth of a legitimate child is prima facie the place of his settlement”).

slip opinion, revised 7/01/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.