Alley v. Caspari

• Decision Date: 07 March 1888
• Citation: Alley v. Caspari, 80 Me. 234, 14 A. 12 (Me. 1888)
• Parties: ALLEY v. CASPARI.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

14 A. 12

80 Me. 234

ALLEY

v. CASPARI.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 7, 1888.

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Hancock county.

Assumpsit. Defense, want of jurisdiction because defendant was not a resident within the county of Hancock.

W. P. Foster, for plaintiff. Deasy & Higgins, for defendant.

PETERS, C. J. In a writ returnable to the municipal court of the city of Ellsworth, a tribunal having jurisdiction in actions where not exceeding $100 of debt or damage is demanded, and the person sued is a resident of Hancock county, the defendant is described as commorant of Eden, within that county, and was arrested on the writ as he was about to remove his residence out of the state. He disputes the jurisdiction of the municipal court upon the plea that, when arrested, he was not a resident of any place in Hancock county, but had his residence in Boston, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. We think he was a resident in Eden, in the meaning of the act creating the municipal court, while personally present there, and having at the time no permanent home or residence elsewhere in this state. Such residence as he had, all that he had, in Maine, was in Eden. His bodily presence there was, for jurisdictional purposes, equivalent to residence. His permanent domicile may have been in Massachusetts; but his domicile for the time being, his transitory domicile, was in Maine, and he was a commorant of any place where found. If it were not so, then none of our courts have jurisdiction of defendants who are non-residents of the state, but are personally present within its borders; for the statutes do not provide for such cases if the defendant's theory be correct. Story, in his Conflict of Laws, (section 581,) founds this jurisdiction of courts on the axiom laid down by Huberns that all persons who are found in the limits of a government, whether the residence be permanent or temporary, are to be deemed subjects thereof. Wharton takes the same view of the law, citing English and American cases in its support. Whart. Confl. Law, § 742. Our own reported cases have not embraced the question, but our practice has always been in accordance with the rule stated. In Massachusetts there are several interesting and instructive cases on the subject. Barrell v. Benjamin, 15 Mass. 354; Roberts v. Knight, 7 Allen, 449; Peabody v. Hamilton, 106 Mass. 217. These cases cover the ground fully. In one of them the question arose in the police court of Boston, a...