In re Robinette

• Decision Date: 07 November 1941
• Docket Number: No. 32932.,32932.
• Citation: 300 N.W. 798,211 Minn. 223
• Parties: In re ROBINETTE et al. AITKIN COUNTY v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

300 N.W. 798

211 Minn. 223

In re ROBINETTE et al. AITKIN COUNTY v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS.

No. 32932.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 7, 1941.

Rehearing Denied November 28, 1941.

Appeal from District Court, Aitkin County; Graham M. Torrance, Judge.

Proceeding in the matter of the settlement of James Robinette and others, by the County of Aitkin against the City of Minneapolis. From an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the proceeding, the defendant appeals.

Reversed with directions.

R. S. Wiggin, City Atty., and Carsten L. Jacobson, Asst. City Atty., both of Minneapolis, for appellant.

John T. Galarneault, Co. Atty., of Aitkin, for respondent.

PETERSON, Justice.

The poor relief settlement of James Robinette and his family is in Minneapolis, where they resided from 1935 to May 5, 1940. On the last mentioned date they took up their residence on an 80-acre farm in Aitkin county, which Robinette owns and to which he holds the fee title. The value of the farm is about $800. Robinette owned an automobile, two cows, one hog, and 20 chickens. He had an income of $20 per month from the sale of a house and lot in Minneapolis, but no income from the farm. He was physically unable to work, and his income was entirely inadequate to sustain him and his family. Relief in some form was necessary.

On October 17, 1940, Robinette applied to the Aitkin county authorities for assistance. Emergency assistance in the amount of ten dollars was given. Some correspondence followed between the Aitkin county and Minneapolis city poor relief officials as a result of which the city of Minneapolis definitely admitted that the settlement of the Robinettes was in Minneapolis, that the city was responsible for their care and support, and that it consented to their removal from Aitkin county to Minneapolis.

On November 6, 1940, the poor relief authorities of Aitkin county served the Robinettes with the statutory warning under 1 Mason Minn.St.1927, § 3173,¹ to depart from the county. On November 28, the Robinettes having failed to depart (as it is fair to infer because of their inability to do so), the county commenced the present proceeding to establish the settlement of the Robinettes in Minneapolis and for their removal thereto.

The removal proceedings were had under 3 Mason Minn.St.1940 Supp. § 3161-1, which reads as follows:

"Whenever a dispute shall arise between political subdivisions within a county or between two or more counties or between a county and a political subdivision of another county or political subdivisions of different counties as to the place of settlement of any poor person, any such county or political subdivision may serve upon the other or others a notice * * * for a determination of the settlement of such poor person."

The city, upon an adequate showing which was not controverted, moved to dismiss the proceeding upon the ground that there was no "dispute" between the parties, since it had always admitted the facts asserted by the county and was willing that the county should have the relief demanded in the proceedings by a removal under 1 Mason Minn.St.1927, § 3173. The motion was denied. The court heard the matter, found that the settlement of the Robinettes was in Minneapolis, and ordered their removal thereto. Then the city moved again for a dismissal notwithstanding the decision of the court and for amended findings and conclusions or a new trial. The motion was supported by an affidavit of Robinette that he was a freeholder and objected to the removal. The appeal is from the order denying the motion.

Here, the city contends that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings for want of a dispute; that the court was without jurisdiction for the further reason that the statute does not authorize the removal of a freeholder; that the county's exclusive remedy, if any, under the circumstances, was a removal without court proceedings, under 1 Mason Minn. St.1927, § 3173; and that the court erred as a matter of law in refusing to dismiss for want of a dispute.

We need only consider the claimed error that the court erred in denying the motion to dismiss for want of a dispute. The city objects not to the removal of the...