v. Rymer, 169 U. S. 115, supra. If the plaintiff was domiciled in the State of Michigan when this suit was begun, he was a citizen of that State within the meaning of the Judicial Code. Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315. Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U. S. 619, 624. In this case it clearly appears that for some years prior to 1890 the plaintiff lived in Menominee, in the State of Michigan. He had there a home, and exercised the ordinary duties and privileges of citizenship. In February, 1890, his uncle died in Connecticut, and the plaintiff immediately went to Danbury, in that State, where he remained practically all the time until his death in 1911.

The question is, Had he lost his domicile in Michigan and acquired one in Connecticut, so that he was at the beginning of the suit in 1904 in reality a citizen of the last-mentioned. State?

This matter of domicile has been often before this court, and was last under consideration in the case of Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U. S. 619, supra. In that case the definition of domicile, as defined by Mr. Dicey, in his book on "Conflict of Laws," 2d ed., 111, is cited with approval. There change of domicile is said to arise where there is a change of abode and "the absence of any present intention to not reside permanently or indefinitely in the new abode." Or, as Judge Story puts it in his work on "Conflict of Laws," 7th Ed., § 46, page 41, "If a person has actually removed to another place, with an intention of remaining there for an indefinite time, and as a place of fixed present domicile, it is to be deemed his place of domicile, notwithstanding he may entertain a floating intention to return at some future period." "The requisite animus is the present intention of permanent or indefinite residence in a given place or country, or, negatively expressed, the absence of any present intention of not residing there permanently or indefinitely." Price v. Price, 156 Pa. St. 617, 626.

Opinion of the Court.

235 U. S.

Applying these definitions to the conduct of plaintiff, we have no doubt that the court was right in holding that he had acquired a new domicile in the State of Connecticut. He removed there with his family, and occupied a house to which he held the title. He owned other real estate in Connecticut, inherited from his uncle. He took a letter from his church in Michigan to a church in Danbury, Connecticut. For about ten years he was not back in Michigan, except for a short time, and then for a temporary purpose. The Michigan homestead and much of the furniture used there were sold upon the removal to Connecticut. For more than ten years he resided continuously with his family in the same house in Danbury, Connecticut. While the plaintiff did not vote in Connecticut, as far as the record shows, it is in evidence that he declared to another his intention of becoming a voter there. To some witnesses he declared his purpose to reside in Connecticut. As against this testimony, it appears that he left his desk with his brother-in-law in Michigan, which he declared was for the purpose of "holding his residence there." To some witnesses he declared his intention to live in Michigan and expressed his preference for that State as a dwelling-place. He continued to pay membership dues to orders to which he belonged in Michigan.

It is apparent from all the testimony that the plaintiff may have had, and probably did have, some floating intention of returning to Michigan after the determination of certain litigation and the disposition of his property in Connecticut should he succeed in disposing of it for what he considered it worth. But as we have seen, a floating intention of that kind was not enough to prevent the new place, under the circumstanes shown, from becoming his domicile. It was his place of abode which he had no present intention of changing, that is the essence of domicile.

235 U. S.

Statement of the Case.

We find no error in the conclusion of the District Court upon the question of jurisdiction, and its judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

JEFFREY MANUFACTURING COMPANY v.

BLAGG.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO.

No. 511. Argued December 1, 1914.-Decided January 5, 1915. The negligence of a fellow servant is more likely to be a cause of injury in larger establishments than in smaller ones and assumption of risk is different in the former than in the latter. Classifications based on number of employés in a state statute abolishing the fellow servant and assumption of risk defenses under specified conditions are not so arbitrary as to amount to a denial of equal protection of the laws.

This court only hears objections to the constitutionality of a statute from those who are themselves affected by its alleged unconstitutionality in the feature complained of. Where the employer raises the question of denial of equal protection of the laws, arguments based on alleged discriminations against employés cannot be decisive. The Fourteenth Amendment only takes from the State the right and power to classify subjects of legislation when the attempted classification is so arbitrary and unreasonable that the court can declare it beyond legislative authority. Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61.

In a general Workmen's Compensation Act, establishing a state plan that all employers having five or more employés may enter on equal terms, a provision, abolishing the defense of contributory negligence as to such employers who do not come into the plan, is not unconstitutional as denying equal protection of the laws as to them because the defense is not abolished as to those having less than five employés; the classification is not arbitrary and unreasonable, and so held as to such provision in the Workmen's Compensation Law of Ohio.

THE facts, which involve the constitutionality under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth

Opinion of the Court.

235 U. S.

Amendment of certain provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of Ohio, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. H. B. Arnold, with whom Mr. W. Wilson Carlile was on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Fred C. Rector and Mr. James I. Boulger, with whom Mr. Timothy S. Hogan, Attorney General of the State of Ohio, and Mr. F. M. McSweeney were on the brief, for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio, to recover for injuries received by Harry O. Blagg, while in the service of The Jeffrey Manufacturing Company, a corporation engaged in manufacturing at Columbus, Ohio. The allegation was that the injury happened to the plaintiff because of the standing of certain freight cars upon a switch, with an opening left between them for the use of employés; that the plaintiff was directed by the defendant to assist in removing certain lumber from a point on the north side of the switch, and, in so doing, it was necessary for the plaintiff to pass, as directed and instructed by the defendant, through the opening between the fourth and fifth cars on the switch; that whilst he was so doing, defendant caused to run against the car standing on the east end of the switch a long cut of cars pushed by an engine, with the result that the cars on the switch were jammed and pushed together, and the plaintiff was caught and seriously injured. The negligence charged was (1) in causing said cut of cars to be pushed upon and against the car standing upon said switch while plaintiff was between said cars, (2) in failing to warn or notify the plaintiff of the intention of the defendant to push said cars into or upon said switch or

against the car on the east end thereof, and (3) in having an insufficient number of men or employés engaged in the handling and switching of said cut of cars. A recovery was had in the Court of Common Pleas, and the judgment was affirmed in the Court of Appeals, and in the Supreme Court of the State, and the case was brought here by writ of error.

The constitutionality of the Act of the General Assembly of the State of Ohio known as the Workmen's Compensation Law is brought in question because of the fact that manufacturing companies, employing five or more, who do not take advantage of its provisions, and the plaintiff in error did not, are deprived in negligence cases of certain defenses otherwise available: (1) negligence of fellow-servants, (2) defense of assumed risk, and (3) defense of contributory negligence.

The constitutionality of the act was sustained against many objections after full consideration by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State ex rel. Yaple v. Creamer, 85 Oh. St. 349. The validity of the act in a single feature is here brought in question. To decide it renders necessary some examination of its provisions, as outlined in §§ 1465, et seq., of Vol. 1, Page & Adams' annotated General Code of Ohio. The act is intended to create a state insurance fund for the benefit of injured, and the dependents of killed, employés. The general scheme of the law is to provide compensation by means of procedure before a board, for injuries not wilfully self-inflicted, received by employés in the course of their employment. The employer who complies with the law is relieved from liability for injury or death of an employé who has complied with the terms of the act, except the injury arise from the wilful act of the employer, his officer or agent, or from failure to comply with laws enacted for protection of the employé, in which event the injured may sue for damages or recover under the act. It is one of the laws which has