Blaine v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 02 April 1920
• Docket Number: 1161.
• Citation: 265 F. 324
• Parties: BLAINE v. MURPHY et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

265 F. 324

BLAINE v. MURPHY et al.

No. 1161.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

April 2, 1920

On Application for Rehearing April 28, 1920.

On Application for Rehearing.

Edwin C. Barringer, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

John P Feeney, of Boston, Mass., for defendants.

MORTON District Judge.

The only ground of jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship, the writ alleging that the plaintiff is a citizen of New York and that the defendants are citizens of Massachusetts. Both defendants have filed pleas in abatement, averring that they are citizens of New York and that there is no diversity of citizenship. The issue was heard by the court by agreement of parties, oral and documentary evidence being introduced.

The facts are unusual and interesting. The defendants are the widow and daughter of Joseph Murphy, deceased, who as early as 1871 was conducting a hotel known as the State Line Hotel on the border between the towns of West Stockbridge, Mass and Canaan, N.Y. He died in the early 80's and the defendants have resided at and carried on the hotel ever since. They have no other residence or business.

The family have always regarded themselves as citizens of New York. The various license papers which were required for the hotel were uniformly taken out in that state. Mr Murphy's will was probated there. In various instruments dealing with land, the defendants are described as residents of Canaan, N.Y. There is an unbroken series of federal licenses to sell liquor and tobacco, and New York licenses to sell liquor, ending 1916 or 1917, and covering many years, all of which describe the hotel as being in New York and the licensee as a resident in that state. There can be no doubt that the defendants have intended to be and have supposed themselves to be citizens of the state of New York for at least 40 years continuously.

The buildings of the State Line Hotel always stood across the boundary between the two states. There was formerly a bound stone in the highway near one of the front corners of the house; and it was generally understood that the line ran through the building, so as to leave the front veranda and a little of the parlor (with the rooms overhead) in Massachusetts, and the rest of the buildings in New York.

In 1899 commissioners appointed by the two states re-marked-- but did not change-- the old boundary. See Report of Mass. Commissioners Desmond Fitzgerald et al. to Mass. Legislature dated March 6, 1900, House Doc. No. 1100. This work disclosed that the bound stone referred to, and the supposed line in that vicinity, were about 50 feet east of the true line. The location of the State Line Hotel with reference to the true boundary is shown on a plan accompanying the report referred to. All of the hotel except the rear part of the ell is, and always has been, in Massachusetts. The portion in this state includes all the principal rooms; that in New York state contains a few sleeping rooms in the upper stories, and, on the ground floor, rooms used as a storeroom and as a summer dining room. The toilets are outside structures, and are in New York, and so are the spring from which the water is supplied, the gardens and most of the farm. What proportion in the value of the property lies in each state is not in evidence.

Ordinarily questions of domicile arise where a party has several places of residence, or has removed from one place to another. In such cases intention may be an important factor. The present case is quite different. There is no doubt where the defendants in fact reside; it...