Gilbert v. David
235 U.S. 561, 35 S. Ct. 164, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1842 (1915)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A change of domicile is established by physical presence in a new location combined with a present intention to remain there indefinitely. A mere 'floating intention' to return to a former domicile at some future, undetermined time is not sufficient to defeat the establishment of a new domicile.
Facts:
- For several years prior to 1890, the plaintiff, Gilbert, lived in Menominee, Michigan, where he had a home and exercised the rights of citizenship.
- In February 1890, following the death of his uncle, Gilbert moved with his family to Danbury, Connecticut.
- Upon moving, Gilbert sold his Michigan homestead and most of the furniture used there.
- Gilbert purchased a house in Danbury, Connecticut, where he resided continuously with his family for more than ten years.
- He transferred his church membership from a church in Michigan to one in Danbury.
- While living in Connecticut, Gilbert expressed to some individuals his intention to become a voter there and to reside there permanently.
- Contradictorily, Gilbert left a desk in Michigan, claiming it was to 'hold his residence,' paid membership dues to orders in Michigan, and told other witnesses of his intent to eventually return to Michigan.
Procedural Posture:
- Gilbert (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against the defendants in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, claiming federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
- The complaint alleged that Gilbert was a citizen of Michigan and the defendants were citizens of Connecticut.
- In their answer, the defendants admitted their Connecticut citizenship but stated they had no knowledge of Gilbert's citizenship and would 'leave him to proof thereof,' thereby putting his citizenship at issue.
- Years later, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that Gilbert was, in fact, a citizen of Connecticut.
- The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- The District Court impaneled a jury but directed the trial to proceed solely on the question of jurisdiction.
- After hearing testimony from both parties on the issue, the trial judge, not the jury, found that Gilbert was a citizen of Connecticut and dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
- Gilbert appealed the dismissal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction, does a person change their domicile to a new state by residing there and intending to remain indefinitely, even if they maintain a 'floating intention' to return to their former state at some future point?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Day
Yes. A person's domicile changes to a new state when they reside there with the intent to remain indefinitely, and this change is not negated by a vague or 'floating intention' to return to their former state at some uncertain future time. Domicile is determined by a combination of a change of abode and the absence of any present intention to not reside permanently or indefinitely in the new location. The court found that Gilbert's actions—moving his family, selling his Michigan home, buying a home in Connecticut, living there for over a decade, and transferring his church membership—provided overwhelming evidence of his intent to make Connecticut his fixed present domicile. His stated intentions to someday return to Michigan were merely a 'floating intention' and were insufficient to overcome the objective facts demonstrating that Connecticut had become his place of abode which he had no present intention of changing.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard for determining domicile in the context of federal diversity jurisdiction. It emphasizes that objective actions demonstrating an intent to remain in a new state carry significantly more weight than subjective, and often self-serving, declarations of a 'floating intention' to return to a former state. The ruling reinforces that the mental component of domicile ('animus manendi') is a present intention to stay indefinitely, not a permanent commitment to never leave. This precedent makes it more difficult for litigants who have clearly relocated to claim a former state's citizenship solely for the strategic purpose of creating diversity jurisdiction.
