19 C.J. 433, § 67; 17 Am.Jur. 605, § 24; Dicks v. Dicks. 177 Ga. 379 170 S.E. 245; Stevens v. Allen, 139 La. 658, 71 So. 936, L.R.A. 1916E, 1115; Gallagher v. Gallagher, Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W. 516; Harris v. Harris, 205 Iowa, 108, 215 N.W. 661; 23 C.J. 50. Voting is a distinct, unequivocal public assertion by the voter of his domicile; is a circumstance of controlling weight. Cooper's Adm'r v. Com., 121 Va. 338, 93, S.E. 680; Wolf v. McGavock, 23 Wis. 516; Dorus v. Lyon, 92 Conn. 55, 101 A. 490; First Nat. Bank of Hinton v. Tate, 116 W. Va. 138, 178 S.E. 807; Steer's Succession, 47 La. Ann. 1551, 18 So. 503; Danforth v. Nabors, 120 Ala. 430, 24 So. 891; Sneed v. Sneed, 14 Ariz. 17, 123 P. 312, 40 L.R.A., N.S., 99; Hendricks v. Hendricks, 72 Ala. 132; Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N.Y 556; Reese v. Reese, 179 Misc. 665, 40 N.Y.S.2d 468; Schouler's Div.Man. 35. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy. Ex parte Tower Mfg. Co., 103 Ala. 415, 15 So. 836; Ex parte Jones, 133 Ala. 212, 32 So. 643; Ex parte Barnes, 84 Ala. 540, 4 So. 769; Reynolds v. Crook, 95 Ala. 570, 11 So. 412; Ex parte Haralson Co, 75 Ala. 543; Ex parte Tuck, 217 Ala. 143, 115 So. 155; Davis v. Harris, 211 Ala. 679, 101 So. 458; Brown v. McKnight, 216 Ala. 660, 114 So. 40; Ex parte Altman, 233 Ala. 475, 172 So. 641; Brady v. Brady, 144 Ala. 414, 39 So. 237; Ex parte Watters, 180 Ala. 523, 61 So. 904; First Nat. Bank v. Cheney, 120 Ala. 117, 23 So. 733.
Such act is a deliberate public assertion of the fact of residence and is said to have decided preponderance in a doubtful case upon the place the elector claims as, or believes to be, his residence. Cooper's Adm'r v. Commonwealth, 121 Va. 338, 93 S.E. 680; Wolf v. McGavock, 23 Wis. 516; First Nat. Bank v. Tate, 116 W. Va. 138, 178 S.E. 807. It is quite likely that those listed as living out of the county for occupational or related reasons, or a substantial number of them, could succeed in maintaining their voting in Bullock County in litigation specifically arising from their right to vote there under Alabama law.
Nevertheless, there exists a rebuttable presumption that one's residence is his or her domicile. Syl. Pt. 3, First Nat. Bank v. Tate, 116 W.Va. 138, 178 S.E. 807 (1935) ("Domicile is presumed to follow residence."); District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 455 (1941) ("The place where a man lives is properly taken to be his domicile until facts adduced establish the contrary.")
Because candidate Polan is unmarried, many of the normal indicia of residence are lacking at both places. In this respect, as this Court stated in First National Bank of Hinton v. Tate, 116 W. Va. 138, 142, 178 S.E. 807, 810 (1935): "Fixing the place of domicile of a single man, perhaps without church, lodge, social or community interest, is particularly difficult." Similarly, because Polan Realty owns both buildings, other economic indicia of domicile are lacking. For example, candidate Polan pays no rent or utilities, with the exception of his telephone which is listed at his address at The Prichard, and which has been listed in his name since 1970 according to his own testimony, at either location.
See, Carter v. Walker, 121 W. Va. 81, 1 S.E.2d 483 (1939); Mann v. Peck, 139 W. Va. 487, 80 S.E.2d 518 (1954); Ruddle v. Ruddle, 143 W. Va. 83, 101 S.E.2d 440 (1957). Accord: First National Bank v. Tate, 116 W. Va. 138, 178 S.E. 807 (1935). The trial transcript of this case is devoid of any objection by the Bank to defendants' testimony concerning their transaction or communication with Mrs. Bell. Likewise, the transcript does not demonstrate the assertion of any motion to strike such evidence after it had been received.
Messick v. Southern Pennsylvania Bus Co., 59 F. Supp. 799; Broadstone Realty Corporation v. Evans, 213 F. Supp. 261; Jardine v. Intehar, 213 F. Supp. 598. The important factors in determining the domicile of a person who has more than one residence are the physical character of each, the time spent and the things done in each place, and whether or not there is an intention to return to the original domicile. White v. Tennant, 31 W. Va. 790, 8 S.E. 596; First National Bank of Hinton v. Tate, 116 W. Va. 138, 178 S.E. 807; Mercadante v. City of Paterson, 111 N.J. Super. 35, 266 A.2d 611. See Tate v. Tate, 149 W. Va. 591, 142 S.E.2d 751.