¶2When the plaintiff, Henry H. Boberti, left this city two years ago, lie was a reside fit of this State, his domicil <md family having been located here for about two years previously. .
¶3Although, by reason of his prolonged absence, he might he proceeded hgainst by attachment at the instance of a creditor, yet he is still to be deemed a resident of this State for all other purposes.
¶4A married man having his family fixed at one place, hut doing business at another, the former is to be deemed bis place of residence ; and while his family so remain fixed, he cannot acquire a residence elsewhere : the rule being that his original domicil must prevail until lie acquires another. Phillimore’s Law of Domicil, §§ 23, 209 ; Matter of Thompson, 1 Wend. 44; Chaine v. Wilson, 1 Howard, 552, 558; Houghton v. Ault, Id., 78.
¶5The case of Wright v. Black (2 Wend. 258), cited by respondent as controlling the present case, was prior to the Be-vised Statutes, and seems to be under a rule of Court made in January, 1799. Besides, it did not there appear that the plaintiff had a family, or any fixed place of abode. Order appealed from reversed with §10 costs. '