Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/697

 ■WOOLRIDGE V. m'kENNA. 683 �common, some years ago, than special acts of the legislatures eman- cipating minora from the disabilities of infancy, entirely or partially; and some states have general statutes on the subject. I have no doubt that, nnder our adoption laws in Tennessee, if a citizen of Kentucky should adopt the minor child of a citizen of Tennessee, that ipso facto, and by necessary implication, the child would become a citizen of Kentucky by the consent of the state of Tennessee, and that Kentucky would recognize the changed ttatus of the child. Gonst. Tenn. art. 2. § 6 ; T. & S. Code (Tenn.) 3643-3645. So, if, under our Code, which says— �"A father * * * may, by deed executed in his life-time, or by last will and testament in' writing from' time to time, and in such manner and form as lie thinks fit, dispose of, the cnstody and tuition of any legitimate child under the age of 21 years and unmarried, * * * during the minority of said child, or for a less time." T. & S. Gode, § 2492. �—A deed or will should appoint a citizen of Kentucky such guardian, I have no doubt it would operate to make the child a citizen of Ken- tucky by necessary implication, whether it would or not for all pur- poses change the rule that the last domicile of the father constitutes the domicile of the child. And, perhaps, there would be the same resuit if the county court should bind an abandoned child to a citizen of another state. T. & S. Code, § 2549. �Why cannot a person have two domiciles — one for political citizen- Bhip, and another for purposes of succession ? And, as I understand the subject, there ie respectable authority that he may. The supreme court bas held thpit, ex necessitate rei, a wife may acquire a different domicile from that of the husband, and the same necessity may some- time exist, I should think, in the case of a child. Cheever v. WUson, 9 Wall. 108. I am aware that our courts have decided that there is a distinction between residence, however long-continued, and citizen- ship, in the purview of our constitution and laws, and that they apply substantially the same tests applied to determine questions of dom- icile in determining questions of citizenship ; but I know of no case that holds that the -person must denude himself so entirely of his former domicile in one state that the laws of succession in the new state must attach to him in order to constitute a change of citizen- ship, and on the principleslaid down by the authorities I have con- sulted on the subject of two domiciles, I do not know why this most rigid test of domicile should be insisted on. I should, of course, con- cede that the person can have only one domicile or residence as per- taining to his inter state right'of suing or being sued in the federal ��� �