Response or Comment
The question of domicil under consular jurisdiction was discussed at some length by the present writer in an article which appeared in an earlier number of this review. See 17 MICH. LAW REV. 437-455. When that article was written some much quoted dicta and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Casdagli v. Casdagli, 87 L. J. P. 73, 79, indicated that according to the English rule a domicil of choice could not be acquired under consular jurisdiction. The author ventured to criticise that extraordinary rule from the point of view of the authorities and on principle. With regard to the authorities it was suggested that what appeared to be the English rule was the outcome of an obsolete theory of immiscibility, an imperfect analogy with commercial domicil in prize law, an equally imperfect analogy with the atnomalous doctrine of Anglo-Indian domicil, and the accumulated dicta of distinguished judges. On principle it was urged that the rule involved an unnecessary confusion of domicil with lex dornicilii and that the acquisition of domicil under consular jurisdiction should be governed by the same principles which control the acquisition of domicil elsewhere. The American case of Mather v. Cunningham, 1O5 Me. 326, and LORD JUSTICE SCRUTON's dissenting opinion in the Casdagli Case were commended as offering a more satisfactory solution of the problem from all points of view.
Dickinson, Edwin D. "The Domicil of Persons Residing Abroad under Consular Jurisdiction." Mich. L. Rev. 17, no. 8 (1919): 694-6. (This piece is a follow up to his previous article under the same title in Mich. L. Rev. 17, no. 6 (1919): 437-55.)