Krasnov, supra, p. 1301 of 465 F.2d. These indicators may not be conclusive, however. Krasnov, supra, p. 1302; Chaney v. Wilson-Benner, Inc., 165 F. Supp. 64 (M.D. Pa. 1958), but they do lend some guidance in the determination.
Turning to the merits of the case before us and applying the indicators of domicile, the following facts appear certain:
First, the defendant (who is unmarried) came to Erie, Pennsylvania in March of 1970 to work for General Electric and remained here until the present time.
Second, he has a leave of absence from General Electric and is presently enrolled at Penn State University as a graduate student.
Third, he votes, pays state and local income taxes, lives in residency and banks in Pennsylvania.
Fourth, he considers himself a citizen of Pennsylvania (Deposition of defendant, page 11.)
On the other side of the ledger, the defendant's parents live in Ohio, his driver's license and cars are registered in Ohio and he is registered for the selective service draft in Ohio.
Viewing the totality of the circumstances, it would appear that the defendant is a Pennsylvania domiciliary. It is not uncommon for one's parents to live in a different state than their grown child, nor is it uncommon for a person to be registered for the draft in the state where he grew up as a child and resided at age 18. As for the car registration and driver's license being from Ohio, it becomes apparent in the defendant's deposition that convenience of registering was the deciding factor even though it may have been improper under Pennsylvania law. In the totality of the circumstances before us, it is our belief that the defendant's domicile was Pennsylvania at the time of the filing of this action. Louisville, N.A. & C. Railway Co. v. Louisville Trust Co., 174 U.S. 552, 19 S. Ct. 817, 43 L. Ed. 1081 (1899); McNello v. John B. Kelly, Inc., 283 F.2d 96 (3d Cir. 1960); Krasnov supra, p. 1300 of 465 F.2d. The evidence is so clear and convincing as to warrant the finding of domicile here, and the overcoming of any presumption in favor of the former Ohio domicile over an acquired one. Herzog v. Herzog, supra; Hamlin v. Holland, 256 F. Supp. 25 (E.D. Pa. 1966).
Although the plaintiff has not sustained his burden of showing diversity jurisdiction by the fair preponderance of the evidence, he is not out of court without a remedy since he has filed a protective action in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania.