the country or remain in Russia, enjoying equal rights with other foreigners. They must provide themselves with national passports within a year, if resident in European Russia or belonging to a country in Europe, or within two years, if residing in Siberia or having to obtain such passports in any other quarter of the globe. On the lapse of those dates without production of passport, the foreigner must either leave the country or resume his Russian nationality.

(3.) Exception in cases of deserters and Asiatics.

(4.) Annuls all enactments compelling Russian women married to foreigners to sell their immoveable property in Russia, with the exception of certain kinds of property which, as foreigners, they still have no right to possess. With respect to the enactment concerning the payment of three years' dues and export duties by foreigners wishing to leave their Russian nationality, that law is abrogated in respect to those countries which shall adopt a reciprocity on such matters.

C. Abrogating law by which a foreigner was obliged to take an oath of allegiance prior to his marriage with a Russian woman, and by which he was required to ask permission of the Emperor to contract marriage with a Russian woman of the orthodox faith.

To Earl Russell, K.G.

I have, &c.

NAPIER.

CHAPTER XIII.

CRITERIA OF DOMICIL.-I. PLACE OF ORIGIN.

CCXI. THE Domicil resulting from Origin is to be distinguished, as has been already observed, from the accidental place of birth, which affords a much fainter kind of presumption (a). The place of Origin continues to be the Domicil until it be changed either by those who have the power to change it, as in the case of pupilage, or by a party sui juris.

CCXII. The doctrine of the Civil Law is explicit: "Let "each person follow the origin of his father;" that is, each person legitimately born; for the doctrine is equally explicit that "whoever has no lawful father, his first "origin is deemed to be from his mother" (b).

CCXIII. In Bruce v. Bruce (c), the first case of Domicil brought before the House of Lords, Lord Chancellor Thurlow said: "A person's Origin, in a question of Where is his "Domicil? is to be reckoned as but one circumstance in "evidence which may aid other circumstances; but it is an "enormous proposition that a person is to be held domiciled "where he drew his first breath, without adding some"thing more unequivocal." And in Bempde v. Johnson (d), Lord Chancellor Loughborough said that he laid "the least

(a) Guier v. O'Daniel, 1 Binney's (Pennsylvanian) Rep. p. 349. Marsh v. Hutchinson, 2 Bosanquet & Puller's Rep. p. 219.

(b) "Exemplo senatorii ordinis patris originem unusquisque sequatur."-Cod. lib. x. t. xxxi. 36. "Ejus qui justum patrem non habet, prima origo a matre."-Dig. lib. 1. t. i. 9.

(c) Note to Marsh v. Hutchinson, 2 Bosanquet & Puller's Rep. p. 231.

(d) 3 Vesey's Rep. p. 198.

"stress" upon the place of birth taken alone; though, in conjunction with the place of education and connection, it had great weight: and in the case of Ommaney v. Bingham, alluded to in the House of Lords, in 1793, in Somerville v. Lord Somerville, "birth affords some argu"ment; and might turn the scale, if all the other cir'cumstances were in æquilibrio " (e).

66

CCXIV. In Somerville v. Lord Somerville the Master of the Rolls observed: "The third rule I shall extract is, "that the Original Domicil, or, as it is called, the Forum "Originis or the Domicil of Origin, is to prevail until the

66

party has not only acquired another, but has manifested "and carried into execution an intention of abandoning "his former domicil, and taking another as his sole "domicil. I speak of the Domicil of Origin rather than "that of Birth: for the mere accident of birth at any "particular place cannot in any degree affect the domicil. "I have found no authority or dictum that gives, for the purpose of succession, any effect to the place of birth. "If the son of an Englishman is born upon a journey in "foreign parts, his domicil would follow that of his father; "the Domicil of Origin is that arising from a man's birth and connections" (ƒ).

66

(e) Vide antè, § clix. "Interim inficias haud eundum, quin in dubio unusquisque domicilium in ipso potiùs originis loco, quam alibi præsumatur habere: cum enim ab initio jus domicilii a patre in filium translatum sit, atque ita tilius secutus sit domicilium habitationis paternæ, consequens est, ut is, qui id mutatum contendit, hoc ipsum probet; cum in eodem statu res unaquæque mansisse credatur donec contrarium demonstratum fuerit."-J. Voet, lib. v. t. i. s. 92.

(ƒ) 5 Vesey's Reports, p. 786. See, too, De Bonneval v. De Bonneval, 1 Curteis' Ecclesiastical Reports, p. 863.

"Quando ignoratur origo alicujus, an scilicet sit hujus vel illius civitatis et loci, præsumitur esse illius in quâ fuit alitus et educatus," was the opinion of Bartolus, in opposition to that of Andreas Alciatus, and is adopted by Menochius, De Præsumptionibus, lib. vi. præs. XXX. nu. 25. Alciatus gave his opinion, "civem illius civitatis aliquem præsumi in quâ habitare reperitur," eod. ; and this is considered the first presumption, however slender, by modern Courts of Justice.

CCXV. The leading case in English Law upon the question of the preponderating influence of Origin, where the scale is nearly equally balanced between two domicils, is the case of Somerville v. Lord Somerville, which has just been mentioned.

CCXVI. Lord Somerville's father was born in Scotland, and died domiciled in that country. Lord Somerville, the son, was born in Scotland, and at the age of nine or ten years was sent into England, remained a year at Westminster School, and was sent from thence into France, to complete his education. In 1745, he entered the army as a volunteer, and was present at the battles of Preston Pans and Culloden. In 1763, he left the army and resided at Somerville House, in Scotland. He then went abroad; returned in 1765, on account of his father's illness, and after his father's death in that year, stayed about six months longer in Scotland, and then came to London, and manifested an intention to reside a considerable part of the year in London, also to keep up his establishment in the family mansion in Scotland, and divide, as nearly as possible, the year between each residence. It was holden by [Sir R. Pepper Arden,] the Master of the Rolls, after a most elaborate and protracted argument, that the Domicil of Birth had never been abandoned, that Lord Somerville died, as he was born, a Scotchman. In this case, the Domicil of Origin was also the seat of his principal establishment.

CCXVII. In the valuable opinions, or rather decisions, of Grotius, and other Dutch lawyers, upon questions of Domicil, selected by Mr. Henry, in his Appendix to the case of Odwin v. Forbes (g), is the following:-Titius, whose Domicil of Origin was Hanover, lived for some time (probably less than ten years) at Hamburg, making that place the centre of his mercantile transactions: from Hamburg he betook himself to Paris, and after living there a short time, he died, a bachelor and intestate. It appeared, among

(g) Page 185.

other things, that he had made no declaration of intending to change his Domicil of Origin, and that he had exercised no rights of citizenship at Hamburgh, where his moveable property was found at his death. It was decided, that his Domicil of Origin had never been lost, and that his property must be distributed according to the law of Hanover.

CCXVIII. In the American case of Catlin v. Gladding (h), a person had abandoned his original domicil and citizenship, but afterwards returned to the home of his mother's family; and the circumstance of birth was holden material by that eminent jurist, Judge Story, as fixing the required domicil.

CCXIX. Lord Stowell says (), "It is always to be "remembered, that the native character easily reverts, and "that it requires fewer circumstances to constitute domicil "in the case of a native subject than to impress the national "character on one who is originally of another character ; but the acquired domicil must be finally abandoned before the Domicil of Origin can revert (k).

CCXX. In the case of Chiene v. Sykes, determined by Sir W. Grant in 1811, the facts of the case were these:Robert Chiene was born at the Scotch town of Crail and was a natural child. He was educated at Crail, residing with his mother. At about eighteen years of age he went to sea; he returned to Crail in the year 1784, spent a twelvemonth on shore, and then resumed his occupation as a seaman. He returned to Crail in the year 1802, and resided there till his death, which happened in November of that year. It appeared that, some years before his death, he had caused to be purchased for him and his brother a dwelling

"The sin of the old

(h) 4 Mason's Circuit Court Rep. p. 308. (i) La Virginie, 5 C. Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 99. character is revived," he observes in The Phonix, 3 ibid. p. 191. The necessary caution as to applying the authorities of cases in the Prize Courts has been already pointed out. Note to Munroe v. Douglas, 5 Maddock's Reports, p. 394.

(k) Craigie v. Lewin, 3 Curteis' Eccl. Rep. p. 405. [See King v. Foxwell, L. R. 3 Ch. D. p. 518.]