Adams v. Smith

Supreme Court of Iowa
192 Iowa 78 (1921)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A domicile of choice is not lost by mere abandonment with the intent to acquire a new domicile; the original domicile is retained until a new one is effectively acquired through the concurrence of actual presence and the intent to remain.

Facts:

Evan Jones was born in Wales (domicile of origin) but immigrated to the United States in 1883.
He settled in Iowa, became a naturalized U.S. citizen, and accumulated significant property while working as a coal miner (domicile of choice).
Jones had an illegitimate child, the appellant, who remained in Wales.
In 1915, Jones decided to leave Iowa permanently and return to Wales to live the remainder of his life with his sister.
He sold his real estate in Iowa, converted his assets into drafts and cash, and left the state without any intention of returning.
Jones boarded the steamship Lusitania to cross the Atlantic Ocean.
On May 7, 1915, while the ship was en route and before reaching Wales, the Lusitania was sunk by a German submarine.
Jones died in the sinking while in itinere (on the journey), having abandoned Iowa but not yet having set foot in Wales.

Procedural Posture:

The brothers and sisters of the decedent secured the appointment of an administrator in the District Court of Wapello County, Iowa.
The illegitimate child (appellant) filed a claim to be recognized as the sole heir.
The District Court tried the issue of domicile to determine which law of descent applied.
The District Court entered judgment against the child, finding the decedent was domiciled in Wales.
The child appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Iowa.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a naturalized citizen who abandons his domicile of choice with the specific intent to return to his domicile of origin lose his acquired domicile immediately upon departure, or does he retain it until he actually arrives at his destination?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Faville

No, the decedent did not lose his Iowa domicile because he had not yet acquired a new one. The court reasoned that while every person must have a domicile, the acquisition of a new domicile requires the concurrence of two elements: the fact of removal and the intent to remain in the new locality. The court explicitly rejected the English 'reverter' rule, which posits that a domicile of origin instantly reverts when a domicile of choice is abandoned. The court found this English rule was based on feudal concepts of 'native allegiance' that do not apply to a naturalized U.S. citizen. Furthermore, applying the English rule would create inconsistencies; if Jones had been moving from Iowa to New York, he would have remained an Iowan until reaching New York. The court concluded there is no logical reason to treat a move to a foreign country differently than a move between states. Therefore, since Jones died before reaching Wales, his domicile remained in Iowa.

Analysis:

This case is a seminal decision in American conflict of laws regarding the concept of domicile in itinere (while traveling). It highlights the divergence between American and English common law regarding the 'doctrine of reverter.' While English courts historically held that a person's domicile of origin automatically revives the moment a domicile of choice is abandoned, Iowa (and most American jurisdictions) adopted the rule that the old domicile persists until a new one is factually established. This distinction was critical here because under Iowa law, the illegitimate child could inherit, whereas under British law, they could not.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Adams v. Smith (1921)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"