Eddy County v. Wells County
| Decision Date | 17 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | 6484 |
| Citation | 280 N.W. 667,68 N.D. 394 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The question as to the county against which an indigent insane person committed to the state hospital for the insane is a proper charge, must be determined according to the provisions of chapter 97, Session Laws 1933, chapter 119 Session Laws 1935, fixing the settlement of applicants for poor relief.
2. Subdivision 4 of chapter 97, Session Laws 1933, chapter 119, § 1, Session Laws 1935, is construed, and it is held, that an applicant for poor relief who has been a resident of the state for more than one year but who has not resided continuously in any one county during the year immediately preceding his application, has his settlement in that county in which he has longest resided during such year.
Appeal from District Court, Eddy County; R. G. McFarland, Judge.
Proceeding to determine the county against which an indigent patient in the state hospital for the insane was a proper charge by Eddy County against Wells County, wherein, after an adverse determination, Eddy County appealed to the District Court and Benson County was interpleaded. From a judgment that the indigent person was a proper charge against Benson County Benson County appeals.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Ole Ellefson, State's Attorney, and James A Little, for appellant.
The term "legal residence" employed by the legislature in the poor relief laws has a meaning quite different from that which the same term has in other laws of the state. Burke County v. Brusven, 62 N.D. 1, 6, 241 N.W. 82; Enderlin v. Pontiac Twp. 62 N.D. 105, 114, 242 N.W. 117; Kost v. Sheridan County, 46 N.D. 75, 179 N.W. 703.
It would seem apparent from the manner in which this term "legal residence" was used in connection with relief of the poor and also in connection with expense of the insane, that the legislative intention was that the same type of residence was required in each instance. Moody County v. Minnehaha County, 17 S.D. 331, 96 @N.W. 698; Jackson County v. Adams County, 95 N.W. 58. Jackson County v. Hillsdale County, 124 Mich. 17, 83 N.W. 408; Clay County v. Adams County, 95 N.W. 58.
The rule is that residence once acquired in a particular county for poor relief purposes may be lost or defeated by voluntary absence from said county for a period of one year or more. Enderlin v. Pontiac Twp. 62 N.D. 105, 242 N.W. 117; Burke County v. Brusven, 62 N.D. 1, 241 N.W. 82.
The one year referred to in the statute is the year immediately preceding the application for aid. Grove City v. Manannah Twp. 182 Minn. 197, 233 N.W. 875.
The word "reside" has two quite distinct meanings. The one legal and technical; the other personal, actual or physical habitation of a person. Smiley v. St. Hilaire, 237 N.W. 416.
Edgar P. Mattson, State's Attorney, for respondent Eddy County.
The legal settlement of an insane person is in the county which would be primarily liable for the support of such person, if a pauper. Clay County v. Adams County, 95 N.W. 58.
The words "legal settlement" and "legal residence" are synonymous. Louriston v. Swift County, 89 Minn. 91, 93 N.W. 1053.
As between the state and county, or township, the duty of caring for its indigent insane rests upon the state in the first instance; but it may ordinarily look to the county or township for reimbursement. Liability in such cases is, as a rule, fixed by local statutes. Smoot, Insanity, § 151; Porter v. Edwards, 114 Mich. 640, 72 N.W. 614; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Douglas County, 18 Neb. 601, 26 N.W. 378.
The liability of a town for the support of persons who have acquired a settlement therein is not absolute, but conditional, and embraces only those who subsequently become destitute, and unable to support themselves. Merrimack County v. Concord, 66 N.H. 389, 23 A. 87; Lower Augusta Twp. v. Northumberland County, 37 Pa. 143; Ex parte Blewett, 32 Leg. Int. 336.
The burden of caring for insane persons in needy circumstances who cannot be admitted to an asylum rests upon the county in which they have their "legal settlement." Cuyahoga County v. Cleveland, 63 Ohio St. 335, 58 N.E. 801; Re Woodcock, 82 N.W. 71; Jackson County v. Hillsdale County, 124 Mich. 17, 83 N.W. 408.
Where one has a fixed residence or settlement in a county in the state, he cannot regain a residence or settlement in another county, until he has resided in such latter county for a period of a year or more. Bank of Park River v. Norton, 14 N.D. 143, 104 N.W. 525; State v. McGruer, 9 N.D. 566, 84 N.W. 363; Security Improv. Co. v. Cass County, 9 N.D. 555, 84 N.W. 4779
Aloys Wartner, Jr., State's Attorney, and B. F. Whipple, for respondent Wells County.
It is possible that a person may have a "legal residence" as a voter in one county and a "legal residence" for the purpose of obtaining poor relief in another. Burke County v. Brusven, 62 N.D. 1, 241 N.W. 82; Anderson v. Breithbarth, 62 N.D. 709, 245 N.W. 403.
The term "settlement" as used in the pauper acts is not synonymous with "domicile." 19 C.J. 397.
The law of this state is that a person coming into the state with the intention of remaining shall be considered a resident of the state, within the meaning of the chapter on exemptions. Cox v. Allen, 59 N.W. 397; Kost v. Sheridan County, 46 N.D. 75, 179 N.W. 703; Smiley v. St. Hilaire, 237 N.W. 417.
Nuessee, J. Christianson, Ch. J., and Morris and Burr. JJ., and Grimson, Dist. J. concur. Sathre, J. did not participate, Hon. G. Grimson, Judge of Second Judicial District, sitting in his stead.
On October 5, 1935, Hjalmer Johnson, an indigent insane person was committed from Eddy county to the state hospital for the insane. The question then arose between Eddy county and Wells county as to which county was responsible for his care and maintenance. So the state auditor, pursuant to the provisions of § 2576, Comp. Laws 1913, investigated the question of Johnson's residence and determined that he was a proper charge against Eddy county. Thereupon, pursuant to the provisions of § 2577, Comp. Laws 1913, Eddy county appealed to the district court. Thereafter Benson county was interpleaded. Trial of the issues was had in the district court and the court made its findings of fact and ordered judgment that Johnson was a proper charge against Benson county. The matter is here for review on appeal from the judgment entered accordingly.
There is no controversy as to the facts, which are as follows: Hjalmer Johnson was twenty-eight years old. He was an unmarried farm laborer. He had no fixed place of abode. For more than one year immediately prior to June 20, 1934, he had resided and had his settlement for poor relief purposes in Wells county, North Dakota. On June 20, 1934, he left Wells county and went to Benson county. He remained there continuously until February 25, 1935. On that date he left Benson county and went to Eddy county. He remained in Eddy county working as a farm hand, until October 5, 1935, when he was found to be insane and committed to the state hospital for the insane.
All the parties to this controversy are agreed that the responsibility for the care and maintenance of an indigent insane person is to be determined by the law fixing the responsibility for the care and maintenance of the indigent who are not insane. And the district court so held. This holding was correct. Chapter 38 of the Political Code, Comp. Laws 1913, is concerned with the police power of the state. Article 1 thereof, §§ 2496 to 2528, both inclusive, as amended (see chap. 97, Sess. Laws 1933, and chap. 119, Sess. Laws 1935) deals with the support of the poor. It placed the exclusive jurisdiction, control and administration of poor relief in the hands of the county commissioners of each county. Article 1a of said chap. 38, § 2528a, 1925 Supplement to the 1913 Comp. Laws, deals with the care of indigent and crippled children. Article 2 of said chapter 38, as amended, makes provision for the establishment of county asylums and poor farms under the directions of the boards of county commissioners. Article 3a, §§ 2546a1 to 2546a10, both inclusive, of the 1925 Supplement, deals with mothers' pensions. Article 4, §§ 2547 to 2567, both inclusive, Comp. Laws 1913, as amended, deals with the care of the insane. Article 5 () as amended, provides that the counties of their residence shall be liable for the care and maintenance of insane persons. Section 2568 provides: "The expense for the care, board and treatment of all patients in the state hospital for the insane shall be a charge upon each county sending such patient or patients to the state hospital for the insane, as hereinafter provided for."
Section 2570 provides that when the superintendent of the state hospital has notice that a patient sent from one county has a legal residence in another county, he shall thereafter hold and keep such patient at the expense of and as from the latter county. Section 2572, 1925 Supplement, provides for the levying of a tax to cover the charge for the maintenance of the county's patients at the state hospital for the insane. Section 2576, Comp. Laws 1913, provides that when the question arises as to the county against which a patient is a proper charge, it shall be the duty of the state auditor to make investigation and determine such...
To continue reading
Request your trial