Anda di halaman 1dari 2

White vs.

Tennant (1888)
Facts:
Michael White was legally domiciled in West Virginia where he had lived his
entire life and owned a farm.
Michael had made an agreement with his mother, brothers and sisters to sell his
farm and occupy a house on 40 acres of land in Pennsylvania, just across the
West Virginia state line.
o The land was part of a larger family farm located on both sides of the
state line with a mansion-house found on the West Virginia side.
Michael and his wife brought their possessions and livestock to their new home.
However, the house was cold and damp and Michaels wife was not feeling well,
so he accepted an invitation to spend the night in the West Virginia mansion-
house. They unloaded their possessions first and then left.
It turned out that Michaels wife had typhoid fever. He took care of her at the
mansion-house, and also went into Pennsylvania daily to care for his stock. His
wife recovered.
Two weeks later, Michael caught typhoid and died in West Virginia. His wifes
father, Tennant (Defendant), was appointed administrator of Michaels estate.
Under the law of West Virginia, Michaels wife would receive all her husbands
personal property by intestate succession. Under Pennsylvania law, she would
receive only half, and his immediate family would get the other half.
White (Plaintiff), the brothers and sisters of Michael, sought to set aside the West
Virginia distribution of his estate, claiming he was domiciled in Pennsylvania.
Issue/s:
WON the succession and distribution of a decedents personal estate should be
controlled by the law of the state where the decedent was domiciled at the time of
death Yes
Held:
Yes. The succession and distribution of a decedents personal estate is controlled
by the law of the state where the decedent was domiciled at the time of death.
A domicile is a residence, actual or developing, with the lack of any intent to
make a domicile elsewhere. These two elements must exist together. One
domicile cannot be lost until another is acquired.
The facts reveal that Michael left his West Virginia residence with no plans to
return and with the intent and purpose of making his permanent home in
Pennsylvania. Therefore, at the moment he and his wife arrived at their new
home, their domicile became Pennsylvania.
o His leaving there, under the circumstances, with the intention of
returning there did not change that fact. He did not revive his domicile in
West Virginia as he had already sold his residence and left it with no
intent to return.
Accordingly, the decree must be reversed and remanded.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai