Seegers v. Strzempek, Civ. A. 13887.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. 13887. |
| Citation | 149 F. Supp. 35 |
| Parties | Virginia Smith SEEGERS, Plaintiff, v. Robert STRZEMPEK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Moll, Desenberg, Purdy & Glover, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Willans, Frisbee & Ryal, Detroit, Mich., for defendant.
Jurisdiction of this court in this cause is predicated upon the ground of diversity of citizenship between the parties. In her complaint plaintiff alleges that she is a citizen of the State of Illinois and that defendant is a citizen of the State of Michigan. Defendant moved to dismiss this action on the ground that plaintiff was a citizen of and was domiciled in the State of Michigan at the time the complaint was filed, hence there was no diversity of citizenship of the parties hereto as a basis for jurisdiction of this court. This motion is now under consideration.
The following facts are undisputed: Prior to September 3, 1954 plaintiff was domiciled in the State of Michigan. She registered as a voter, exercised voting privileges, worked and lived in the City of Detroit. On September 3, 1954 she married Lt. Herbert J. Seegers in Cheyenne, Wyoming, where Lt. Seegers was stationed with the United States Army Air Force. His home was in Elgin, Illinois at the time he entered military service. Plaintiff lived and cohabited with her husband in Cheyenne from the date of the marriage until October 20, 1954 when her husband left under army orders for Tokyo, Japan. Plaintiff then returned to her former residence in Detroit, resumed her former employment, and on November 4, 1954 voted in Detroit in the general election under her maiden name and the name under which she previously registered as a voter. This action was filed on November 2, 1954. In January, 1955, she left for Japan to join her husband and, upon completion of his period of service, accompanied him to his home in Elgin, Illinois, where she continued to live with him as husband and wife until the present time.
It is plaintiff's claim that she at all times after her marriage intended to establish a home with her husband in his home town upon completion of his term of military service, and to live with him in the meantime while he was in service, but that army regulations prevented her from joining him in Tokyo, immediately upon his departure for Japan. Defendant contends that she continued her domicile in Michigan after her marriage and that her return to her former residence and employment in Detroit, coupled with the exercise by her of voting rights in Detroit, support this contention.
A citizen of a state does not change his citizenship by entering military service even though he is assigned to duties in another state or country, and regardless of the term of service, unless he indicates an intent to abandon such original domicile and adopt a new one. Kinsel v. Pickens, D.C., 25 F.Supp. 455; Wise v. Bolster, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 856; Humphrey v. Fort Knox Transit Co., D.C., 58 F.Supp. 362. See also I Cyc. Fed.Proc., 3d Ed., Sec. 2.282, p. 459, and notes in 129 A.L.R. 1383 and 148 A.L.R. 1414. There was no showing that the domicile of plaintiff's husband was elsewhere than in Elgin, Illinois, at the time this action was filed.
The domicile of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stifel v. Hopkins
...this argument ignores the fact that, except when precluded by the operation of some per se rule of law, see, e. g., Seegers v. Strzempek, 149 F.Supp. 35 (E.D.Mich.1957), courts usually will examine the physical facts in an effort to ascertain domiciliary intent, and will often assign a domi......
-
Ellis v. Southeast Construction Company
...6 Cir., 151 F.2d 602; Von Knorr v. Miles, D.C.Mass., 60 F. Supp. 962, reversed on other grounds, 1 Cir., 156 F.2d 287; Seegers v. Strzempek, D.C.Mich., 149 F.Supp. 35; Mangene v. Diamond, 9 Cir., 229 F.2d 554; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 205 Ark. 650, 169 S.W.2d 876; Mohr v. Mohr, 206 Ark. 1094, 17......
-
Gambelli v. US
...domicile and adopt a new one.'" Deese v. Hundley, 232 F.Supp. 848, 850 (W.D.S.C. 1964) (emphasis added) (quoting Seegers v. Strzempek, 149 F.Supp. 35, 36 (D.C.Mich. 1957)). An individual may change his domicile instantly by taking up residence in another state with the intent to remain ther......
-
Eckerberg v. Inter-State Studio & Publ'g Co.
...term of service, unless he indicates an intent to abandon such original domicile and adopt a new one." (quoting Seegers v. Strzempek , 149 F.Supp. 35, 36 (E.D. Mich. 1957) )); see also Bowman , 267 F.Supp. at 313–14 (placing the burden on the defendant to prove a serviceman's domicile chang......