Cornelison v. Blackwelder

• Citation: 131 P. 701,38 Okla. 1,1913 OK 242
• Parties: CORNELISON v. BLACKWELDER.
• Decision Date: 15 April 1913
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

131 P. 701

38 Okla. 1, 1913 OK 242

CORNELISON v. BLACKWELDER.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

April 15, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

The intention of a person as to the place of his residence is a question of fact, to be determined by the verdict of the jury or the findings of the court; and such determination is conclusive upon appeal if there was any evidence reasonably tending to support it.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

It is exclusively within the province of every citizen to determine where his residence shall be, and such determination is binding upon all parties.

Error from District Court, Tillman County; Frank Mathews, Judge.

Action by Browne Cornelison against J. W. Blackwelder. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

W. F Wilson and John Tomerlin, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mounts & Davis, of Frederick, for defendant in error.

KANE J.

This controversy grows out of an action for damages for breach of contract commenced by the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, against the defendant in error, defendant below wherein upon the commencement of the action an attachment was issued against the property of the defendant upon the ground that he was a nonresident of this state. Upon a motion to dissolve the attachment being filed, the court below, after a hearing, sustained the same, finding from the evidence that the defendant was a resident of the state of Oklahoma at the time the attachment was issued. To reverse the action of the court below this proceeding in error was commenced.

In our judgment the evidence reasonably tends to support the finding of the court below on the question of the residence of the defendant. It is well settled that it is exclusively within the province of every citizen to determine where his residence shall be, and that such determination is binding upon all parties. Hairston v. Hairston, 27 Miss 704, 61 Am. Dec. 530; Bradley v. Lowry, Speers' Equity (S. C.) 1, 39 Am. Dec. 142; Lyman v. Fiske, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 231, 28 Am. Dec. 293; White v. Tennant, 31 W.Va. 790, 8 S.E. 596, 13 Am. St. Rep. 896. The evidence of the defendant was to the effect that he resided in North Carolina prior to coming to Oklahoma, leaving his family at his former home; that he came to Oklahoma in April, 1910, for the purpose of building a knitting mill which it was his intention to have his son manage and operate; that on account of sickness in the family of his son this plan was abandoned, and the defendant decided to manage the business, and make Oklahoma his home. The following are some of the questions and answers on cross-examination: "Q. When you went home with your son's wife, I will ask you to state if you had then already decided to come back to Oklahoma and make this your home? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it not the first arrangement for your son to run the mill? A. Yes, sir. Q. But after his wife got sick, was it not your intention to come back, and let him go to North Carolina, and you were going to run the mill? (Objected to by cou...