City of Rockland v. Inhabitants of Town of Lincolnville

• Decision Date: 27 April 1938
• Citation: 198 A. 744
• Parties: CITY OF ROCKLAND v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF LINCOLNVILLE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

198 A. 744

CITY OF ROCKLAND

v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF LINCOLNVILLE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 27, 1938.

Report from Superior Court, Knox County.

Action by the City of Rockland against the Inhabitants of the Town of Lincolnville to recover for supplies furnished in support of paupers. On report from the superior court.

Judgment for plaintiff.

Argued before DUNN, C. J., and STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, HUDSON, and MANSER, JJ.

Charles T. Smalley, of Rockland, for plaintiff. Montgomery & Gillmor, of Camden, for defendant.

DUNN, Chief Justice.

Three children, all legitimate, and infants under the age of twenty-one years, whose own father was dead, and who were living with their mother and stepfather in the home of the latter, in the city of Rockland, were, on January 31, 1936, so completely destitute of property as to require assistance by the public.

Their distress was relieved by the city.

In this action to recover for supplies, controversy here narrows, on facts agreed, to whether or not the minor paupers are chargeable to the town of Lincolnville.

Their father, on his removal from that town, in October, 1925, had, from it, in case of need, a right of support, which he apparently never invoked. He died January 18, 1929.

At the time of his death, he and his family lived in Rockland. The three children were then of his household.

The obligation of towns, regarding the relief of the poor, originates in statutory enactment, and not from contract, express or implied. Augusta v. Waterville, 106 Me. 394, 76 A. 707; Auburn v. Farmington, 133 Me. 213, 175 A. 475.

By the original poor laws, passed in 1821, chapter 122, when Maine commenced to legislate, and on to 1933, generally, the pauper settlement of a legitimate minor child was that of its father. The settlement remained even after the father's death. Fairfield v. Canaan, 7 Greenl. 90, 7 Me. 90; Presque Isle v. Caribou, 122 Me. 269, 119 A. 584.

In P.L.1933, c. 203, § 2, the text of the statute was amended. The amendment, in relevancy to present issue, made the controlling section R.S. c. 33, § 1, subd. 2, to read as follows:

"II. Settlement of children. Legitimate children have the settlement of their father, if he has any in the state; if he has not, they shall be deemed to have no settlement in the state. Stepchildren have the settlement of their stepfather, if he has any in the state; if he has not, they shall be deemed to have no settlement in the state. Children or stepchildren shall not have the settlement of their father or stepfather, acquired after they become of age and have capacity to acquire one."

Two years later, the section, as amended, was further amended. P.L.1935, c. 186. This, becoming effective July 6, 1935, left the section, R.S., supra, reading, as it still reads:

"II. Legitimate children have the settlement of their father, if he has any in the state; if he has not, they shall be deemed to have no settlement in the state. Children shall not have the settlement of their father, acquired after they become of age and have capacity to acquire one."

Edward Drinkwater's widow married again. Her second husband had no settlement in Maine. On her remarriage, in 1929, the children whose settlement is now in question became the stepchildren of the new husband. Guilford v. Monson, 134 Me. 261, 185 A. 517.

The statute, as amended in 1933, may...