Winn v. Gilmer

Decision Date01 January 1886
Citation27 F. 817
PartiesWINN v. GILMER.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

Leo. Tarleton, for plaintiff.

Houston Bros., for defendant.

TURNER J.

'Citizenship,' as used in the law under consideration, means residence with intention of remaining permanently at that place. A man may reside in a state for an indefinite period of time without becoming a citizen, but the moment a man takes up his residence in a state different from that where he formerly was domiciled or was a citizen, with intent and purpose of making the new place of residence his future permanent home that moment he loses his former domicile, and becomes domiciled in the new place; or, in other words, he ceases to be a citizen of the former place of residence, and becomes a citizen of the state of his adoption.

The question for me to decide is whether Mr. Winn, the plaintiff and his assignor, from whom he claims a part of his alleged right of action at the time this suit was instituted, were citizens of Texas. I put the question this way, because, if not citizens of Texas at that time, it will be conceded that this suit may be properly prosecuted here.

The query raises two questions of fact:

First. Where did these parties reside at the time this suit was brought? As a simple question of residence, it may be safely said, in San Antonio. Both these parties were single men leading a sort of nomadic life, but for the last two or three years the evidence indicated very clearly that San Antonio was headquarters, and the place of residence, for business purposes, or for choice or pleasure, it matters not, for the purpose of this decision.

Second question is, was that residence coupled with an intention to permanently remain here? From the nature of the case, no person can judge of the secret intentions dwelling in the minds of other men. The resolutions, intentions, and desires of the mind are made manifest by acts which often reveal the inward intention as clearly as it would be if the mind of another was so constructed that it could be opened and read as we read from a printed volume. To illustrate: Suppose a man should approach, and deliberately draw a pistol, and discharge it at the person he was approaching, and should kill him by so doing, we would all say that the act was but the execution of a resolution or determination of the mind in the slayer to do great bodily injury to the person slain, and no declaration of innocent intention, however strongly asserted, would convince the observer that the act was other than willful, and done in order to carry out a previously formed design. A man throws into the sea an article of value; we know he intended to part with its possession forever.

I have given these strong and abstractly convincing acts to illustrate why it is that we may properly judge of men's intentions by their acts, when not accompanied with declarations; and sometimes we would conclude that the act spoke louder than the declaration, if they were inconsistent with each other. Hence arises the familiar saying that 'actions speak louder than words.'

The question for me to decide, from all the facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence, is whether, after carefully weighing all the evidence, the citizenship of the plaintiff is such as authorized him to bring this suit in this court. The wisdom displayed in permitting a citizen of another state to sue a defendant who resides in this state has never been doubted, and that right should be carefully guarded and protected, whenever the citizenship is of different states. We know, from observation and experience that association begets friendship, and friendship begets favoritism and bias in favor of those of whom we think kindly; and a stranger, who should come into a community, and sue a man of good standing, and be compelled to take a jury from the friends and acquaintances of the defendant, would, without any intention on the part of the jury, certainly have to contend against the bias which unconsciously, but inevitably, springs from friendly association. Hence the justice of the law which has created a forum where non-residents can litigate their legal rights; where juries are obtained from widely-separated communities, and therefore not likely to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Petrowsky
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 7, 1918
    ... ... Case v. Clarke, 5 Fed.Cas ... 254; Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co., 5 Fed.Cas. 291; ... Gardner v. Sharp, 9 Fed.Cas. 1196, 1199; Winn v ... Gilmer (C.C.) 27 F. 817; Sharon v. Hill (C.C.) ... 26 F. 337, 342; Zambrino v. Galveston, etc., R. Co ... (C.C.) 38 F. 449, 453; ... ...
  • Harding v. Standard Oil Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • October 25, 1910
    ...remaining permanently at that place. A man may reside in a state for an indefinite period of time without becoming a citizen. ' Winn v. Gilmer (C.C.) 27 F. 817. domicile and citizenship were held to have been changed. A person cannot be a resident of two states at the same time. Residence i......
  • Corel v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • June 15, 1903
    ...of intention is to be gathered from the acts of the party, and even his mere statements or declarations are not conclusive. Winn v. Gilmer (C.C.) 27 F. 817; Rucker v. Bolles, 80 F. 504, 25 C.C.A. Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Carroll, 84 F. 780, 28 C.C.A. 207. Where the plaintiff, as in this case, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT