In Re the Estate of Finlayson

CoNNOR, J. The findings of fact, with respect to the domicile of H. L. Einlayson, at the date of his death, made by the clerk, and approved by the judge of the Superior Court of Wayne County, on petitioners’ appeal from the order of the clerk, were supported by competent evidence, and are therefore conclusive. Although there was conflict in the evidence, the findings of fact are not subject to review by this Court. Lumber Co. v. Finance Co., 204 N. C., 285, 168 S. E., 219; Tyer v. Lumber Co., 188 N. C., 268, 124 S. E., 305; In re Martin, 185 N. C., 472, 111 S. E., 561. In the last cited case, it is said: “Domicile is a question of fact and intention. Hence, to effect a change of domicile, there must be an actual abandonment of the first domicile, coupled with an intention not to return to it, and there must be a new domicile acquired by actual residence at another place, or within another jurisdiction, coupled with the intention of making the last acquired residence a permanent home. The judge finds that no such change took place here.” *364 The fact, as shown by all the evidence in the instant case, that at the time of his ’death in the city of Richmond, Virginia, H. L. Einlayson resided in said city, is not determinative of the question presented by this proceeding. The evidence was at least conflicting as to his intention to make his permanent home in the city of Richmond. There was evidence tending to show that he resided in the city of Richmond, as he had in Norfolk, and New York, from time to time, for business reasons only, and that at no time did he intend to make his permanent home elsewhere than in the city of Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina, where he was born, and where, at her death, he brought the body of his wife for burial. It is significant that as one of the executors of his wife’s will, he caused the said will to be probated in Wayne County, and that he returned to Goldsboro, in Wayne County, to have his last will and testament drawn by an attorney at law who resided in Golds-boro. The will offered for probate by his daughter, whose domicile is in this State and who is named therein as his executrix, begins with these words: “I, H. L. Einlayson, of the city of Goldsboro, said county and State.” This will was executed by him while he was residing in the city of Richmond, but contains no recital that his home was in said city. There is no error in the judgment. Affirmed.