Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/776

 764 FEDERAL REPORTER. �manent, but will not disprove his citizenahip in the place of his new domicile, if the jury are satisfied that his first removal was honafide and without an intention of returning. " Cooper V. Galbraith, 3 Wash. 546. "If there has been an actual removal, with intent to make a permanent residence, and the acts of the party correspond with the purpose, the change of domicile is completed, and the law forces upon him the char- acter of a citizen of the state where he has chosen his domi- cile." Butler V. Farnsworth, supra. A temporary return to one's former place of residence, with views and for objecta merely temporary, does not revive a former citizenship. Burn- ham V. Rangely, 1 Woodb. & M. 7. "If the change of resi- dence or citizenship is apparent only, and there has been, in fact, no change of residence, but only a transfer of apparent residence, anhno revertendi, to give color of jurisdiction in a suit in the state of actual residence, it may not avail ; but, where there is an actual change of residence and citizenship before suit brought, the motive to such change is not material, even if it was a desire to give capacity to sue in the courts of the United States." Pond v. ITie Vermont Valley R. Co. 12 Blatlihf, 293. So, to effect a change of citizenship from one state to another, there must be an actual removal, an actual change of domicile, with a honafide intention of aban- doning the former place of residence and establishing a new one, and the acts of the party must correspond with such purpose. �The plaintifif in the present case is a married woman, She was married in January, 1879. Prier to her marriage she had always resided in Milwaukee. This was the home of her parents. After the marriage, and until August 5, 1880, she and her husband lived and kept house in this city. He is a person of foreign birth, and before his marriage to the plain- tiff he had resided in Wisconsin two or three years. After marriage, and while living in this state, he was employed as a traveling salesman for Chicago and Milwaukee houses. On the fifth of August, 1880, the plaintiff and her husband, with one child and a nurse, left Milwaukee and went to Minne- sota. This suit was begun about September 17, 1880. It ia ����