WHITE v.

TENNANT (1888) In West Virginia, the entire estate, after payment of debts, would belong to
31 W.Va.790; 8 S.E. 596
J. Snyder
FACTS: After the death of Joseph S. White, his widow and his sons and
daughters, resided in the mansion house in West Virginia.
One of Joseph’s sons, named Michael White married Lucinda White
(childless). Michael purchased a farm on Day’s run, in Monongalia County
and moved therein. That is where Joseph and his wife resided.
Later, Joseph sold the farm and bought a house in Greene County,
Pennsylvania. He took all his personal belongings and brought them to
Pennsylvania in various trips. On April 2, 1885, Michael finally left the West
Virginia farm and declared his intent and purpose of making the
Pennsylvania house his home that evening. At that evening, Michael and
Lucinda unloaded all their goods and put them in the house. They have set
up the bed and the livestock loose at the house.
Lucinda later found the house to be uncomfortable. She was feeling unwell.
Michael’s brother and the rest of Michael’s family invited them to stay in the
West Virginia Mansion to stay all night and return in the morning.
However, for several days, it was impossible for Lucinda to get up and
return to the Pennsylvania house. Because of this, Michael would just visit
the Pennsylvania house to look after it and feed his livestock, still referring
to the house as his “home.”
Later, Michael was attacked by the same sickness his wife had, typhoid
fever. After 10 days, Michael died intestate. Lucinda, however, recovered.
Upon Michael’s death, his property was administered and distributed in
accordance with the laws of West Virginia.
ISSUE: What rule should govern the administration and distribution of the
estate of Michael?
RULING: The laws of Pennsylvania.
Difference in the laws of Pennsylvania and West Virginia
In Pennsylvania, the wife would have been entitled to one half only of said
estate and the brothers and sisters would be entitled to the other half.
the wife.
What rule should govern?
The law of the state, in which the decedent had his domicile at the time of
his death will control the succession and distribution of his personal estate.
Two things must concur to establish domicile, namely: (1) the fact of
residence; and (2) the intention of remaining there.
 The character of residence is of no importance. A residence,
however brief, is sufficient to establish domicile.
 If the domicile has once existed, mere temporary absence will not
destroy it, however long continued.
 Constructive residence seems to be sufficient to give domicile,
though an actual residence may not have begun.
 Domicile cannot be lost or extinguished until another one is
acquired.
Michael was domiciled in Pennsylvania.
In this case, Michael abandoned his residence in West Virginia with the
intention and purpose of not only of not returning to it, but for the expressed
purpose of making a fixed place in Pennsylvania his home for an indefinite
period of time. This is shown by all the circumstances, acts, and
declarations made by Michael.
 He sold his residence in West Virginia and surrendered its
possession to the buyers.
 He moved all his household goods to Pennsylvania.
 He declared his purpose to make the Pennsylvania house his
“home.”
Even if he and his wife had to leave Pennsylvania house on account of
sickness, there was no change in the purpose. They only wanted to stay
with their relatives for a night which later turned into a few nights.
The fact that they stayed there temporarily did not make West Virginia their
domicile again even if Michael died there. His domicile remained in
Pennsylvania; thus, the administration and distribution of his estate should
be governed by the rules of Pennsylvania and not West Virginia.