Winans v. The Attorney-General

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, acting on behalf of the Crown, commenced an action against the Defendants, the sons and administrators of the estate of their father, William Louis Winans (hereafter “the Deceased”). The Plaintiff sought to recover legacy-duty at 10 per cent. on an annuity bequeathed in the Deceased’s 1897 will, contending that the Deceased was domiciled in England at the time of death (22 June 1897).

The Deceased was born in the United States of America in 1823. He lived there until 1850, then moved to Russia for business reasons. Between 1860 and 1870 he wintered in Brighton, returning to Russia for roughly eight months each year. From 1871 to 1883 he spent only short periods in Russia, dividing the remainder of each year among Kissingen (Germany), Brighton, Scotland, and London. After 1883 he ceased visiting Russia and split his time among Kissingen, London, Brighton, and Scotland; from 1893 until his death he lived exclusively in England but in furnished houses and hotels, never purchasing property there.

Throughout his life he pursued two dominant projects: the development of spindle-shaped vessels (which he claimed were a family invention) and the exploitation of a 200-acre property at Ferry Bar in Baltimore. In an 1892 petition to the U.S. Congress he described himself as “attached heart and soul” to America and argued that his vessels would secure U.S. maritime supremacy over Great Britain. He retained significant interests in the Baltimore property and, in a 1897 conveyance, was described as “of the city of Baltimore, but now sojourning in the city of London, England.” His 1897 will opened with the description “citizen of the United States of America, residing at Brighton.”

The Queen’s Bench Division found for the Plaintiff. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Defendants appealed to the House of Lords, leading to the present decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Deceased had abandoned his American domicile of origin and acquired an English domicile of choice before his death.
2. Whether the Plaintiff had discharged the onus of proving such a change of domicile, a prerequisite to the imposition of English legacy-duty.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Deceased spent the greater part of the last several decades of his life in England, indicating that he had become content to treat England as his permanent home.
• There was a period, before his final illness, when the Deceased could have travelled to the United States but chose not to do so, suggesting an intention to remain in England.

Defendants' Arguments

• The burden of proof lay on the Plaintiff to establish a change of domicile; mere prolonged residence was insufficient.
• The Deceased consistently described himself as an American citizen and maintained substantial property and emotional ties with Baltimore, intending ultimately to return there.
• His residence in England was dictated by health and convenience; he never purchased property, lived only in furnished accommodation, and kept largely to himself.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The House of Lords reiterated the settled principle that a domicile of origin persists until a new domicile of choice is acquired, and that the party alleging the change bears the burden of proof. A valid change requires a “fixed and determined purpose” to make the new place the permanent home.

Evaluating the facts, the majority noted:

• The Deceased’s repeated and explicit assertions of American nationality, including the descriptions in his 1897 conveyance and will.
• His lifelong attachment to the Baltimore property and expressed intention, as late as 1895-1896, to return to the United States to develop it.
• The absence of any purchase of English real property and the transient nature of his English residences.
• The anti-English tenor of his 1892 Congressional petition, demonstrating enduring American sympathies.
• The Deceased’s reclusive lifestyle in England, which reduced the likelihood of an unconscious assimilation.

The majority therefore concluded that the Plaintiff had not proved a “fixed and settled purpose” to abandon the American domicile. Lord Lindley dissented, but the majority held that the Plaintiff failed to discharge the requisite onus.

Holding and Implications

Judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed. The claim for English legacy-duty failed because the Deceased retained his American domicile of origin.

Implications: The estate is not liable for the duty sought, and the decision reinforces the stringent burden on parties asserting a change from a domicile of origin, especially where the alleged new domicile is in a different sovereign state. No new precedent was established, but the ruling affirms existing principles on the onus and evidentiary standard for proving domicile of choice.