White v. Tennant
Citation: 31 W. Va. 790 (1888)
Facts
Michael White moved from West Virginia to Pennsylvania, intending to establish a new domicile in Pennsylvania. He became ill en route and died in West Virginia before completing the move. The question was which state’s law governed the succession to his estate — West Virginia (where he died) or Pennsylvania (his intended new domicile).
Issue
Had White established a new domicile in Pennsylvania at the time of his death, or did his domicile remain in West Virginia?
Holding
White had not established a Pennsylvania domicile. He died before arriving and physically settling in Pennsylvania. Domicile requires both (1) physical presence in the new location and (2) intent to make it one’s home. Intent alone is insufficient.
Rule
Domicile acquisition: A new domicile is acquired only when two elements coincide: (1) physical presence in the new place, AND (2) intent to make it one’s permanent home (animus manendi). Until both are present simultaneously, the prior domicile continues.
A person cannot acquire a new domicile in absentia or by intent alone; physical arrival is required.
Significance
- Classic case teaching the two-element test for domicile: physical presence + intent
- Shows the “in transit” problem — domicile does not shift during a move until arrival
- Foundation for understanding domicile in conflict of laws (a concept relevant to personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and federal diversity jurisdiction)