
    William Chaine v. Lewis O. Wilson and Others. Four Other Suits v. The Same Defendants.
    A defendant whose family is occupying, and for several years has been occupying, a dwelling-house in another State, hired by him, and who habitually passes the night of each day, and the Sabbath, with his family, is a non-resident of the State of New York, within the meaning of the statutes of the latter State, authorizing an attachment, in an action, of the property of a non-resident defendant.
    On such a state of facts, he is a non-resident, although he is in business as a merchant in New York city, and passes eight hours of every business day there, (unless sick, or absent on business of his firm,) and has all his business capital in such business, keeps his bank account there, and had selected such family residence on account of its proximity to the city, and for economy in living, and although he might be served with process in such action, any day, during business hours.
    Whether a man’s absence from his family be for eight hours in each day, or six days in each week, if he has a family living in aneighboring State, for whom he provides, to whom he resorts for comfort, relaxation and repose, and with whom he abides whenever the immediate demands of his business upon his attention will permit; whenever sickness disables him from conducting that business;, and when those days successively return on which business ceases, and man rests from his labor; he resides in such neighboring State, where (in every proper sense, as understood no less by those who are learned in the law, than by the common intelligence of every-day life,) is his home.
    Where one has a 7wme, as that term is ordinarily used and understood among men, and he habitually resorts to that place for comfort and rest, relaxation from the cares of business and restoration tq health, and there abides in the intervals when business does not call; that is his residence, both in the common and legal meaning of the term: When a man has such a home, and habitually uses it as such, and a place of business in another State, such place of business is not his residence, within any proper definition of the term.
    It is not enough that one intends to change Ms place of residence: The intent and the fact of such change must concur. Nor is it enough that he intends to change his residence, and sincerely believes that what he has done amounts in law to a change of his residence. His opinion will not produce that result, nor affect the question, if the actual change have not taken place.
    Upon an appeal from an order, founded upon a decision, of a question of fact, upon conflicting affidavits and doubtful circumstances, the order should not be reversed, unless the Appellate Court is satisfied that the decision of the Judge who made it, upon such question of fact, is clearly wrong.
    Order affirmed, with costs.
    (Before Bosworth, Ch. J., and Hoffman, Slosson, Woodruff, and Pierrepont, J.J.)
    Heard, Nov. 21;
    decided, Dec. 18, 1858.
    This action comes before the Court on an appeal by the defendants, from an order made on the 9th of October, 1858, by Mr. Justice Hoffman, in five several actions in this Court, denying a motion made by them to discharge attachments, that had been issued against the property of the defendant, Wilson, on the ground that he was then a resident of Korwalk, in the State of Connecticut.
    The motion was made on affidavits, which, (as the defendants claimed,) established that Mr. Wilson was a resident in the city and State of Kew York, at the time the attachments were issued, In the suit brought by Chaine, the attachment was issued on the 13th of April, 1858.
    In that of Wütkr and others, it was issued, May 23d, 1858. In that of Parker and others, on the 4th of June, 1858. In that of The Middlesex Company, on the 18th of June, 1858. In that of Paige and others, on the first of July, 1858,
    
      The motion to discharge the attachments was based on an affidavit made by Mr. Wilson, on the 30th of July, 1858, and on five other affidavits. The affidavit of Wilson is in these words, viz.
    “ City and County of New York, ss.:
    
      Lewis 0. Wilson, one of the defendants above named, being duly sworn, saith: That an attachment has been issued in this action against the defendant, Lewis 0. Wilson, and levied upon property which belonged to him, on the alleged ground that at the time of the issuing of such attachment on the 25th day of May, 1858, he was not a resident of the State of New York, but resided in the State of Connecticut.
    That deponent was for some years a resident of Norwalk, in the last mentioned State, having gone to reside there on a farm belonging to his wife, when he retired from business in the city of New York; and in the year 1856, he resolved to become a permanent resident of the city of New York.
    That in that year he conveyed to his fourth son Oliver, on his attaining his majority, all the real estate deponent owned at Nor-walk, together with all the personal property and moveables connected therewith. And the said Oliver took possession of said property, and the farm aforesaid, and what had been the homestead, and assumed the entire and exclusive control of each and every of them, as his own, and has continued to hold and own them, and each and every of them, from that time to this.
    That at the time of such transfer deponent, with his wife and youngest boy, now aged about seven years, resided together in said homestead, and composed then, as they have since, his entire family or household, his children, other than said youngest, not dwelling with him.
    That soon after deponent had ceased to be a resident of Nor-walk, and up to the present time, his wife and child have been for long periods at Norwalk, in the house of his son Oliver; but deponent had a room and was a permanent boarder at the Astor House for a long time prior to the fall of 1857, and spent most of his time in this city, going to Norwalk usually on Saturday, andremaining over until the following Monday, and sometimes going on Wednesday and returning the next day, though his visits of the latter kind were not common.
    That in order to select a date, in reference to which the question of evidence may be presented in this suit, and not to admit that his residence was different at any prior date, deponent states that there was no time in the years 1857 or 1858, when, according to his knowledge, information, belief, opinion or intent, he was a resident of the state of Connecticut, but during the whole and any part of said 1857, and so much of 1858 as has elapsed, he has been, and now is, as he believes, a resident of the city and State of Eew York.
    That in the fall of 1857, when the defendants became affected by the commercial embarrassments then so general throughout the United States, it was suggested to deponent that some question might be raised as to his place of residence, and he met the suggestion by the confident declaration, that no such difficulty could arise, as he was a resident of this State. To this position deponent then adhered, as he now adheres, in good faith.
    That one of the persons who spoke to him on this subject was Eathan Hendrix, a clerk in the house of defendants, who advised that, notwithstanding deponent’s confidence on the point, it was better that all doubts concerning it should, if possible, be removed by deponent’s taking his wife and son away from Eorwalk, keeping them domiciled here, and establishing the ostensible, as well as the actual character of his residence, by unequivocal indications.
    Influenced by such advice, deponent, in the fall of 1857, engaged for himself and said family a parlor and bedroom, at the St, Eicholas Hotel, in said city of Eew York, and they with him took possession of and occupied said apartments as their only home, from the Igth day of October, 1857, until about the twenty-second day of January, A. D., 1858, when deponent’s said youngest bóy being ill, and Doctors Pratt and James 0. Smith, of said city, being called to attend him, they advised that said boy should, for the benefit of his health, be taken to the country, for which reason (and for which alone,) deponent’s wife went with said child to the residence of Oliver, aforesaid, in Eorwalk.
    That deponent, a few days afterwards, went to see them, intending the visit to be temporary. That while in Norwalk he became indisposed; afterwards, seriously ill, and continued to be inca pable of resuming business, until towards the latter part of May, A. D., 1858, for which reason he was detained, and he continued at Norwalk, without, however, entertaining at any time the intention or idea of ceasing to be a resident of New-York, but intending all the time that his residence should, as he believed did, continue in that city.
    That in the month of March, A. D., 1858, deponent’s wife returned from Norwalk to New York, with the aforesaid son, and resumed the apartments in the St. Nicholas Hotel, which they had before occupied, deponent expecting and promising that he would follow them to said city, in a few days, but his illness prevented his doing so.
    That from the time they left said hotel, in January, until the aforesaid return thereto, in March, some of their personal property had been left there, from the intent and design that they should resume possession of it on their contemplated return from Norwalk.
    That about the first of April deponent’s said wife went with said' boy to Norwalk, aforesaid, and has remained there since with her said son Oliver; but, since deponent was able to remain in the city, and give any attention to Ms affairs, viz., since the latter part of May, he has been residing at the aforesaid St. Nicholas Hotel, visiting Ms wife and child, at Norwalk, occasionally, and having recently passed some time at Saratoga Springs, for the benefit of his health.
    That at the last mayoralty election held in this city, in November last, tMs deponent gave and deposited his vote, as an elector, of the city and county of New York, at the polls in said city, believing then, as he now believes, that he had full legal right to do so.
    That the various visits made either by deponent’s wife or Ms child, or himself, to Norwalk, as hereinbefore described, were all in fact, and all intended to be temporary sojoumings for the pleasure of social intercourse with their son, or other members of their general family, or change of scenery or air, or the safety or improvement of health, but all of them with the intent and determination, in good faith, that deponent’s residence in New York, and the, right or duties connected with it should remain unaffected and unaltered by such sojournings.
    That the chief reason why deponent did not have any tenement other than in a hotel, was that it has long been his resolution not to occupy a house in Hew York, with his family, until he owned one, but to have a home in a hotel, and he has conferred with several of his friends, and made efforts to obtain an eligible- property in the city, wherein to have himself and his family permanently established.
    And this deponent lastly saith, that since the year 1846, when he resumed mercantile business, in the city of Hew York, his business has been at all times in said city.”
    
      Nathan Hendrix, in his affidavit, deposed that he had read the affidavit made by Wilson, and “ that deponent, in the fall of 1857, had a conversation with said Wilson, and gave him advice, the substance and purport of which is correctly stated in said affidavit.
    That deponent heard at the time of Mrs. Wilson leaving the St. Hicholas Hotel, with her son, for the improvement of such son’s health, as stated in said Wilson’s affidavit.
    That a few days after her departure, said Wilson informed deponent of his intention to visit his family at Horwalk; saying, in substance, that he thought he should have some recreation, and that he expected to be absent about ten days, but not to exceed, at the utmost, two or three weeks. That as the defendants had then suspended regular payments, in their business, the presence of the said Wilson was not deemed so important as it had been on former occasions-; and the embarrassment of the house had given him so much uneasiness, that deponent also thought said Wilson required respite from labor;
    That in the month of April, A. D. 1858, deponent saw said Wilson at' Horwalk; and deponent states that said Wilson was then quite unwell, and incapable, in deponent’s opinion, of attending to his ordinary affairs and business by reason of indisposition.”
    
      Robert B. Coleman, made an affidavit, stating, “that previously to the 12th day of October last,” (1857,) “ said Wilson engaged rooms at the St. Hicholas Hotel aforesaid for himself and his family, and he removed with them to said rooms on said last mentioned day. Such family consisted of Mr. Wilson’s wife and child, and said Wilson occupied said room with them regularly and uninterruptedly from said day until the 12th day of January last, when in consequence of the child’s illness, as deponent was informed and believes, Mrs. Wilson and such child went to Connecticut.
    Mrs. Wilson and the child returned to said hotel on the 22d day of March then next; and on the 80th day of March following she left the hotel with the child to go again to Connecticut, as deponent was also informed and believes;”
    ■ “ James 0. Smith, of said cityj being duly swdrh¡ saith: That he is a practising physician in said city, and has been such for thirty-three years. That on the 17th, 18th; 19th and 20th days of January last, he was called to attend in his professional capacity a child about ten or eleven years of age, who was, as • deponent was informed and believes, a son of L. O. Wilson above named. Deponent found the boy with his mother in apartments at the St. Nicholas Hotel, in the city of New York. The said child was taken by his mother to Connecticut for the change of air, and other benefits which deponent thought would result from the removal; such advice was given professionally, and as the spontaneous result of deponent’s observation and judgment.”
    
      " Ira Gregory, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he resides in the town of Norwalk, in the State of Connecticut, and is a physician duly licensed to practise medicine and surgery, and knows Lewis 0. Wilson, one of the defendants named in each of the above entitled actions. And deponent further says, that he visited the said Lewis 0. Wilson at Norwalk, aforesaid, in a professional capacity, several times during the months of February and March last.
    That at these several times or visits in February and March, 1858, deponent found said Lewis 0. Wilson suffering with very severe rheumatism, accompanied with tumors about the head and neck, and a stiffness and pain in his neck, and incapacitated to attend to any business away from his room; that said Lewis 0. Wilson was then and there advised by deponent not to return to New York until he recovered himself from the severe attack of rheumatism he then labored under.
    
      That deponent believed and looked on the said Lewis 0. Wilson as being a citizen and resident of New York for the last three years, or since he sold and conveyed his homestead property in Norwalk to his son, Oliver Wilson.
    That said Lewis 0. Wilson was not in the habit of attending town meetings or elections in this State since he conveyed his said property as above mentioned.”
    Of the opposing affidavits, several were made by residents of Norwalk, Connecticut, and were to the effect, that Mr. Wilson has resided in Norwalk for many years past, and that the affiants had frequently seen him at his residence there, during the winter and spring, and summer of 1858. That they had also, up to the date of their affidavits, (August and September, 1858), every few days, seen his wife and family there, during the winter, spring and summer, then just past. That they had always heard him spoken of at Norwalk, as a resident of that place. The other opposing affidavits are to the effect, that he voted at Nor-walk, at the Presidential election in 1856. He was assessed as a resident of Norwalk in 1858, the usual .poll tax, and was regarded and treated by the Board of Assessors as a resident of that town. His wife regularly attends church at Norwalk.
    Up to October, 1857, during the active business season, he was at the Astor House several months at a time, at other periods, two or three days, or a week at a time, and the intervals he passed at Norwalk. He at no time, had more than an ordinary bed room at the Astor House, and paid the usual price of a guest of said hotel. He had no permanent lodging room, except during the business season; at other times he had no regular room, but occupied such as was assigned him. He had very little baggage there, and usually only a carpet-bag. That he went, to the St. Nicholas Hotel, with his family, in October, 1857, and they left in January, 1858, and then gave up the apartments he had occupied with his family. While there he paid his bills weekly. In March 1858, his wife and part of his family returned and stayed a few days, and then left, giving up the apartments they had occupied. When Mr. Wilson has been there since, he has been assigned some vacant room, and he has been charged as other temporary guests. That applications were made, at the St. Nicholas Hotel in September, 1858, for
    
      Mr. Wilson, in order to serve papers on Mm. He could not be found there, and the answer made, to enquiries for him, was that he was not staying there, and had no room there.
    No notice of any application to vacate or set aside the attachments, was given until the 31st of July, 1858, after judgment had been perfected in each action, and an execution on such judgment, had been issued, and levied on the property of Mr. Wilson.
    
      James T. Brady, for defendants
    and appellants, upon the question, what constitutes domicil? and of its continuance; and of the effect of intent, and other circumstances in determining the place of one’s domicil, cited and commented on, Putnam v. Johnson, 10 Mass. 488; Parsonsfield v. Perkins, 2 Greenl. 411; 23 Pick. 170; 3 Shep. 479; 10 Pick. 377; 3 Greenl. 455; 11 Pick. 410; 13 Mass. 501; 2 Harr. 138; Parsons on Contracts, vol. 2, p. 90; Note to 1st Binney, 340.
    He contended, that, Wilson was a resident of New York, within the meaning of the statutes prior to the Code, allowing attachments against non-residents, and that tMs proposition was established by the decisions in, Matter of Thompson, 1 Wend. 43; Matter of Wrigley, 8 Wend. 134, and Frost v. Brisbin, 19 Wend. 11.
    He insisted, that the affidavits established certain facts, wMch showed that Wilson was a resident of New York, when the attachments were issued, viz.:
    “1. Bis business and property of every kind were in New York, and always had been, since 1856.
    “2. He had no tenement or "habitation in Norwalk. When there he was a mere guest of Ms son.
    “ 3. He came here from Norwalk to make Ms ' home’ here, and so declared.
    “ 4. It was Ms Mterest to continue Ms residence here, so as to " avoid an'attachment of Ms property.
    “5. He returned here as soon as his health would permit, after his temporary absence from January to May.
    “6. After returning he remained here with the contmued intent to reside here. And he was no' more a resident of Nor-walk than of Saratoga, where he went for the benefit of his health.”
    
      He insisted, that the order appealed from was erroneous, and should be reversed.
    
      John W. Edmonds, for the respondents,
    in four of the actions, and
    
      David Dudley Field, for the respondents, in the other action, analyzed the various affidavits and commented on the facts relied upon, on the one side to show that Wilson’s residence was in New York, and on the other to show that it was in Connecticut, and also made and argued the following points, viz.
    I. —This is the ordinary case of a person doing business in New York, and being in the city only while his business required him here, and for all purposes of family or residence, living in Connecticut.
    II. —His avowed intention to be a resident in New York might serve to characterize a doubtful act, but is not enough to overthrow the fact of actual residence abroad.
    HI.—The defendant was actually resident in Connecticut, within the meaning of the Code and of the various cases on this subject. (Roosevelt v. Kellogg, 20 J. R. 208; Matter of Wrigley, 4 Wend. 602; S. C. in Error, 8 Ibid. 134; Frost v. Brisbin, 19 Ibid. 11; Crawford v. Wilson, 4 Ibid. 505; Drake on Attachments, § 67; Houghton v. Ault, 16 How. Pr. R. 78; Barry v. Bockover, 6 Abbott, 374; 1 Bradford’s Rep. 85-90; Code, §§ 33, 125, 135, 292, 391.)
   By the Court. Woodruff, J.

We held, in the case of Barry v. Bockover, at the General Term of April, 1858, that a defendant, whose family have for more than seven years occupied, and still occupy, a dwelling in Jersey city, in the state of New Jersey, hired by him, and who habitually passes the night of each day, and the Sabbath, with his family, is a non-resident of this State, within the meaning of our present statute authorizing an attachment of the property of a defendant in an action, although such defendant was engaged in business as a merchant in this city, spent eight hours of every business day (unless sick, or absent on business of his mercantile firm,) in this city; had all his business capital invested in such business; kept his individual hank account here; and had selected New Jersey as his family residence solely on account of its convenience for access to the business portion of this city, and for economy in living; and, notwithstanding process in the action, might at any time within the business hours of the day, have been served upon him personally, and was in fact served upon him in the action in which the attachment was issued.

It is therefore to be deemed settled, in this Court, that the right of a plaintiff to have the property of a defendant attached on the ground of his non-residence, does not depend upon the question whether the defendant can be served with the summons in the action, but that the attachment may issue, however convenient it may be to serve the defendant personally with process.

Also, that the carrying on of a mercantile business in this city, and staying within our limits, for the purposes of business, during all the hours usually devoted to business here, do not alone constitute residence within the meaning of the statute. And it follows, as a necessary consequence of this proposition, and is involved in the principle of the ruling, that, whether a man’s absence from his family be for eight hours in each day, or six days in each week, if he has. a family living in a neighboring State, for whom he provides, to whom he resorts for comfort, relaxation and repose, and with whom he abides whenever the immediate demands of his business upon his attention will permit; whenever sickness disables him from conducting that business; and when those days successively return on which business ceases and man rests from his labor; he resides-in such neighboring State, where (in every proper sense, as understood no less by those who are learned in the law, than by the common intelligence of every-day life,) is his home.

We did not deem it necessary for the purposes of that case, and do not deem it necessary for the purposes of the present, to review or recite the various learning to be found in the books, upon the question, how far residence and domicile are synonymous, or how, in certain eases, they differ.

In the case above referred to, the State of New Jersey was the defendant’s domicile, within every definition of that term, and it was not less clearly his residence. It was his abiding-place. He left it, with intent to return so soon as his labors were remitted: He returned to it with intent to remain until called to resume those labors. Hew York was his place of business, Hew Jersey his place of abode. In Hew York was his workshop. In Hew Jersey was his house, his shelter, his fireside, his bed and board. We know of no definition of either domicil or residence which the former will satisfy, nor of any in which the latter will not answer in every particular.

And for like reasons we did not then, and do not now, think it necessary to review the cases in this State in which a man has been held a non-resident within the “spirit” of our former statutes, who has an actual residence out of the State, though he have a family within this State, or have a domicil here, (see those cases collected and discussed by Mr. Justice James in 16 How. P. R. 77, and further by Mr. Justice Hoffman at Special Term in this case.) That long-continued absence in a fixed location, carrying on a business permanent in its nature; or long-continued absence in such location for the purposes of business, the duration of which was uncertain; or absence for several months, in pursuance of an intention to make a permanent location for residence and for business, and an actual location and commencement of such business, though the removal of the family have not yet taken place—should be held to constitute non-residence within the spirit of those statutes, proves nothing in reference to such a case as the one above referred to: the question of their present actual residence, was the question considered in those cases, and was decided in favor of the attaching creditor.

But in no case has it been decided that where the debtor lives with his family in this State, returning to them from day to day or from week to week, he is an actual non-resident, (even within the “spirit” of any law touching non-residents,) merely because he passes the business hours of the day, or the business days of the week, when his health will permit, and his business requires it, in his store or manufactory without the bounds of the State.

In such a case the liability of the party to taxation, to render service as a juror, or to enrolment as one of the militia, we apprehend would not be seriously questioned.

Ordinarily one’s residence and domicile (if they do not always mean the same thing) are in fact the same, and where .they so concur they are that place which we all mean when we speak of one’s home.

And it may safely be asserted that where one has a home, as that term is ordinarily used and understood among men, and he habitually resorts to that place for comfort, rest, and relaxation from the cares of business and restoration to health, and there abides in the intervals when business does not call—that is his residence, both in the common and legal meaning of the term. And to one who has such a home, and habitually uses it as such, a place of business elsewhere, is not his residence within any proper definition of the term.

When the question, where is his residence, arises, some of the proofs, or the indicia by which the place is to be determined, vary with the circumstances of the party. One has a family, another has none—one lives in a state of alienation and separation from his family, another lives with them—one owns or hires a dwelling-house, another has lodgings at an inn—and another may have a much more uncertain shelter. None of these circumstances are necessarily alone conclusive—they are not decisive tests—they are only aids to an answer to the question to be considered in connection with all other pertinent facts which may appear.

So when the fact of residence in a place is ascertained or conceded, it is to be deemed to continue until there is proof of a change of location, with intent to make such location a new home, in the sense above already described, not merely for a temporary purpose, but with a fixed purpose to remain, and without a present intention to return when some temporary purpose is accomplished.

And again, it is not enough that one intends to change his residence. The intent and the fact of such change must concur. Nor is it enough that he intends to change his residence, and sincerely believes that what "he has done amounts in law to a change of his residence, his opinion will not affect the question, " if the actual change have not taken place.

Enough has now been said (and probably more than enough) . to make our views of the case before us intelligible.

The defendant, Wilson, was confessedly a resident of Nor-walk, in the State of Connecticut, in the year 1856.

It will throw light upon the proper weight to be given to his affidavit (upon which the claim to discharge the attachment mainly depends), if it be noticed, that he states that he then “ resolved to become a permanent resident of the city of Hew York,” and that he further states that “ during the whole and any part of the year 1857, and so much of the year 1858 as has elapsed, he has been and now is a resident of the State of Hew York.”

What then did he do in 1856, which made him a resident of the State of Hew York ? The answer to this question may perhaps aid us not only in determining what he means when he swears to residence, and what sort of sojourn in Hew York he intended by what he calls a resolution to become a permanent resident, and what he understands and means by “permanent residence.”

He left his family in Horwalk on the farm, theretofore occupied by them, came to Hew York on Monday, devoted himself to his business here, sometimes until Wednesday, and then returning to his family, and again returning to Hew York on Thursday—but usually staying in Hew York until Saturday, and then returning to his family in Horwalk. While in the city boarding at a hotel as an ordinary guest, and occupying a bedroom only—and this continued until the fall of 1857.

After what has been already said of such a course and habit of life, it is only necessary to add, that this neither in fact nor in law made him a resident of the city of Hew York. And if we assume that in doing this he did, what he states he resolved to do, we see what he means when he says he resolved to become a permanent resident” of the city of Hew York.

In this there is no doubt intimated of Mr. Wilson’s sincerity. On the contrary, the more sincere he is, and the more confidently he insists that he was a resident of Hew York at that time, the more probable it is that his apprehension of the force and meaning of the terms employed in his affidavit is inaccurate, and that if he had explained in detail whát he means by permanent,” and, “ temporary,” “ home,” and “ residence,” or rather if he had given us the particulars embraced in those words, instead of testifying in terms, which, if taken in their legal signification, dispose of the whole question upon his mere opinion, it might have appeared that his affidavit is not less inaccurate in other respects, by reason of similar mistakes in his judgment on the subject.

He was then, a resident of Norwalk down to the time of his failure or embarrassment in business in the fall of 1857;° and he was then admonished by a friend that he might be deemed a non-resident, and it was best to establish “ the ostensible as well as actual character of his residence by unequivocal indications.” It is doubtless true, that the motive with which a change of residence is made, is wholly immaterial, if the change be an actual change, with intent permanently to abide in the new location. But in weighing the evidence, and where there is a conflict of testimony and circumstances detracting from the evidence of the alleged change, the motive under which the party is acting, and the purpose he has in view, may properly be regarded in determining what was the actual intent.

The question we are considering is not whether, if he intended an "actual “permanent residence” in New York, and in pursuance of that intent brought his family here; took possession, of apartments here as his and their “ only home,” and occupied them without any intention to return to Norwalk when a temporary purpose was accomplished, that would make him a resident of this city ? But the very question is, what was his intent in these respects, and what did he do ?

He conveyed his farm and the chattels connected therewith to his son, and when he became embarrassed the deed was placed on record. But that farm has been as open to him and to his family, and has been as freely used as a home to him and them, according to his own affidavit, as it ever was before. Whether his wife’s farm is still retained, or whether that is the farm referred to, is left in doubt by the affidavits.

He took rooms in October, 1857, at a hotel in this city, and with his wife and child, occupied them for three months, paying his bills weekly, but then gave up the apartments, and has not since had any permanent apartment in the hotel; nor does it appear, that he was in the city at all afterwards, until after one, if not two, of the attachments were issued which it is moved to discharge.

It is shown that his child was sick; and that, under the advice of his physicians, was a sufficient reason for taking him from the city. So, also, that Mr. Wilson was sick; and that, if he was too ill to be removed, was a very satisfactory reason for his not returning until sufficiently recovered. But it is not shown that his child continued' ill—nor that he himself might not have returned, if in truth this was his home. Such continued absence would, however, under the circumstances, be far less significant if it were not, that, according to the tenor of his own affidavit, that of Mr. Hendrix, and that of his physician, it is apparent that it was because he had no motive to be here; either because he could not attend to business, or because his firm had suspended payment, and his presence in the city was not deemed so important as it had been on former occasions. And since the month of May, when he has been able to attend to his affairs, he has been merely an occasional transient lodger at the hotel—his family residing at Norwalk.

The indication is not slight, that the purpose under which his family were brought to the hotel, was to continue here only until the embarrassments of his firm had ceased, and with an expectation of their returning to Norwalk, or, if any more protracted stay was contemplated, that the design was abandoned some time before these attachments were issued; and that his subsequent visits to the city were only occasional and .for purposes of business, while his actual residence was with his family at Norwalk.

There are other statements in Mr. Wilson’s affidavit which tend strongly to support the motion for the discharge of the attachments, and it is doubtless true that if that affidavit is to be taken without qualification, and in the very terms therein employed, it would prevail.

Among the other statements, is one, that his wife and child returned to New York in March, and resumed the apartments they had before occupied. With what intent and purpose did they come ? How long did they propose to remain ? How long did they in fact remain? His affidavit does not inform us.

He states that when he and his family left in January, some of their personal property was left there. What property ? Hów far did its character indicate an intention to return ? His affidavit is silent on this subject. While another witness states that he gave up his apartments, and neither he nor his family have ever had any permanent apartments there since.

Is it usual for actual residents to have no house nor apart? ments, by a tenure more permanent than to take and occupy from time to time such rooms, as happen at the moment to be vacant at a hotel ? Probably we cannot say that it is not, and yet we cannot avoid the feeling of surprise, if it be so.

So, also, he states that it has long been his resolution not to occupy a house in New York, until he owned one, and he has conferred with several of his friends, and made efforts to obtain an eligible property in the city, wherein to have himself and his family permanently established. At what time, during the long period here mentioned, did he make these efforts ? Was it before he went to Norwalk to reside ? With whom did he confer? What were the efforts which he made ? And did he even in fact intend to purchase a house here, and if so, when did he have such an intention?

It would seem strange that, in relation to a fact so important. as this on the question of a change of residence, some, at least, of these particulars have not been disclosed.

The review thus given of the affidavit of Mr. Wilson may, perhaps, be deemed minute and critical. But it should be borne in mind that this is the main affidavit upon which the motion is founded—the motion is a very important one to all the parties —the affidavit comes from one who knows all the facts, and some of the facts stated relate to the operations of his own mind, and it is reasonable to expect, under such circumstances, and especially when a severe contest might well be anticipated, a statement less liable to abatement in the particulars above referred, to.

We do not think it necessary to giye a recital of the details found in the numerous affidavits read in opposition to the motion. They tend to show the habits of Mr. Wilson, not only down to 1857, but since; down to the time when the motion was noticed, bearing on the question of residence, and without apparent change in that respect.—The belief of his neighbors and acquaintances in Norwalk founded thereon, or derived from their acquaintance with him.—The efforts made to find him in this city,

«—The apparently transient character of his lodging at the hotels here, from time to time.—The general reputation at Norwalk induced by his habitual actual presence there, as in former years. —The action of the public officers there based upon all the circumstances. And other particulars of less moment.

On the other hand, Mr. Wilson is corroborated, in some particulars of an opposite tendency.

Without entering into any further detailed discussion of the particulars of these affidavits, it must suffice to say that, upon a careful examination of all the affidavits, we are not satisfied that the conclusion of the Judge, at Special Term, that, as matter of fact, Mr. Wilson was a resident of the State of Connecticut when these attachments were issued, was clearly wrong.

The controversy is rather about facts than about the legal principles involved. As to the meaning of the term residence, or non-residence, in reference to this motion, we think there is no ground for difference.

We are sitting as an appellate tribunal, upon a question of fact arising on conflicting affidavits and doubtful circumstances. We should not reverse an order, unless clearly satisfied that the finding of the Judge was wrong. We incline rather to the opinion that, sitting as jurors and acting under instructions touching the law, such as we deem the law to require, we should come to the same conclusion.

The order should be affirmed.

Pierrepont, J., dissented: All the other Justices concurred in the opinion of Mr. Justice Woodruff.

Order affirmed, with costs,  