De Bonneval against Dr Bonneval
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 August 1838 |
| Date | 07 August 1838 |
| Court | Ecclesiastical Court |
English Reports Citation: 163 E.R. 296
IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AT DOCTORS' COMMONS
Referred to, Croker v Marques of Hertford, 1844, 4 Moore, P C 360. Discussed, Lanenville v. Anderson, 1860, 2 Sw. & Tr. 43.
de bqnneval a(janu t de bonneval. Prerogative Court, August 7th, 1838.-The Iff* domacil of origin continues until another is acquired. A new domicil is not acquired by residence unless it be taken up with an intention of abandoning the former domicil-A Frenchman having quitted France ui 1792, in consequence of the Revolution in that country, and having resided in England until 1814, when he returned to France, and from that time resided occasionally in both countries, held, not to have abauduued his original domicil.-The validity of a 1CURT.857 DE BONNEVAL V. DE BONNEVAL ^597 will is to be determined by the law of the country where the deceased was domiciled at his death. [Referred to, Gfiuke,i v Marquis of Hertford, 1844,4 Moore, P C .jfjU. Discussed, Lanenmlle v. Aiultisou, 1860, '2 Sw. & Tr 43 J On petition. Guy Henri du Veil, Marquis de Bonneval, the deceased in thih case, died in Norton street, Frtzroy-square, on the '2'2ad September, 1836, a bachelor, without a parent, leaving the Corate de Bouneval, his brother by the whole blood, and the Marquis de la Jonquiere, his brother by the half blood, his only next of kin Ho left a will in the English language, executed [857] in England on the I'Jbh uf December, 1814, of which the First Lord of the Treasury for the tune being, his nephew, Guy Charles Oscar du Val, Vrcomte de Bonneval, Robert Hen res and Otty-well fiobmson, Esquires, were appointed trustees and executois Ha also executed a further will in France on 14th February, 1820, disposing of his property in France only, and confirming hib will made in England. Probate af the English will was prayed on behalf of the Vicomte de Bonneval, one of the executors, this was opposed on the part of the Comte de Bonneval, the brother of the deceased, who prayed to be heard on his petition in objection thereto. the act on petition was afterwaids brought in, and the only question now before the Court \vas, whether the Marquis de Bonneval, the paity deceased, wa* domiciled at his death in England or in France' Lushington and Haggard for the French domicil. Addams and Curteis contra. Judgment-811 Heibeit Jennet. This question comes before the Court in the shape of an act on petition, respecting a will of the Marquis de Bonneval, dated in 1814, the deceased having died in 1836'. He was a bachelor, and he left a brother by the whole blood, and a brother by [858] the half blood, who would be entitled in distn-bution to his personal estate both by the laws of France and England if he died intestate. The parties before the Court are Charles Francois Guy du Val, Comte de Bonnevfil, the brother by the whole blood, and Guy Charles Oscar du Val, Vicomte de Bonneval, nephew of the deceased, who would be entitled to a benefit under the will, it good and valid. The simple question is, whether the deceased was domiciled in France or in this country On that point it will depend by the laws of which country the validity or invalidity of the will is to be tried . for it is now settled by the cade of titanlty v. Bernes (3 Hagg. Ecc. 273) that the law of the place of dormcil, and not the lex loci rei sitte, governs the distribution of and succession to personal property, in testaey or intestacy. In that case the question related to the validity of certain codicils disposing of property in this country, and it was decided by the High Court of Delegates that if the instrument be not executed according to the law of the domicil of the testator, it is invalid. As far as I am aware of the point decided in that case, it was held that the law of the domicil applies to questions of testacy as well as of intestacy. It appears that my learned predecessor expressly stated the question in that Gn.se to bev whether a British subject, who died abroad (Mr Stanley, the testator, having died abroad, after acquiring a domicil in Portugal), disposing of his property in this country by will, must make it according to British law 01 foreign law 2 and he went on to say that if, in a case of testacy, the lex domicilu applied, and not the law of the countiy^where the property was situated, it would [859] operate to defeat the intention of the testator; for, he observed (p. 443) " What is the Court called upon by the oppoaer of the codicil to decide' That it is invalid, contrary to the manifest intention of the testator, that intention being expressed in an instiument duly executed, according and with reference to the law of this country, in his own handwriting, and attested by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wicker v Hume
...there was no evidence of that acting animo et facto, by which alone a domicile nan be acquired. The case of De Bonneval v. De Bonneval (1 Curteis, 856), shows that though length of time is an ingredient in domicile, it is of little value if not united to intention, and is nothing if contrad......
-
Hoskins v Matthews
...Cole, for the several Respondents. Mr, Willcock, in reply. [14] The following authorities were referred to :-De Bmneval v. De Bunneval (1 Curt. 856); Bempde v. Johnstone (3 Yes. 198); Lcmeuville v. Anderson (17 Jur. Rep. 511); Samerville v. Somerville (5 Ves. 750); Maltass v. Maltass (1 Rob......
-
Attorney General v Fitzgerald
...of a house is not sufficient to outweigh the other circumstances of the case. That circumstance is found in De Bonneval v. De Bonneval (1 Curt. :856), in Munro v. Mvm.ro (7 Cl. & Fin. 842), and Whicker v. Hume (13 Beav. 366), [612] and was not treated in those cases as conclusive. The other......
-
23 Dunl 812
...Voet, ad Pand., 1. i., tit. 4, pt. 2, sects. 7, 13; Stanley v. Bernes, 3 Hagg., p. 373; Curling v. ThorntonENRENR, 2 Add. 6; De Bonneval, 1 Curt., 856; Craigie v. Lewin, ut sup.;Croker v. Marquis of Hertford, 3 Curt., 468, and 4 Moore, P. C., p. 339; Bremer v. Freeman, 10 Moore, P. C., 306;......