Ramsey County v. Lake Henry Tp.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 35431,35431 |
| Citation | 234 Minn. 119,47 N.W.2d 554 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | RAMSEY COUNTY v. LAKE HENRY TP. et al. |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a person removes from a county which administers poor relief under the town system and in which he has a settlement, his poor settlement continues in the township in which it was at the time of his departure until he acquires a new settlement. To acquire a new settlement in another county, he must reside continuously for two years in that county. Two years' continuous residence in some other county, whether it has the county or town system of poor relief, is a condition precedent under M.S.A. § 261.07, subd. 1, to acquiring a new settlement within any other county in the state.
Dell, Rosengren & Rufer, Fergus Falls, for appellant.
James F. Lynch, County Atty., Edward E. Cleary, Asst. County Atty., St. Paul, for Ramsey County.
Harry E. Burns, St. Cloud, for Lake Henry Tp.
The issue presented by this appeal is which of two townships located in different counties in this state is responsible for the support of Fredora Weidner and her four minor and dependent children.
The political subdivisions here involved are the county of Ramsey, the township of Dora located in Otter Tail County, and the township of Lake Henry located in Stearns county. Ramsey county operates under the county system of caring for its poor. Both Otter Tail and Stearns counties have the town system for administering such relief. Pursuant to M.S.A. § 261.08, this matter was heard by one of the judges of the district court for Ramsey county, wherein Mrs. Weidner and her children now reside.
Mrs. Weidner is a widow. Prior to April 20, 1941, she and her four minor children lived and acquired a 'settlement' in Lake Henry township, Stearns county, Minnesota. 1 Since April 20, 1941, they have resided in various parts of the state. After leaving Lake Henry township, they first resided in the city of Minneapolis, Hennepin county, for about three months. 2 They then moved to Dead Lake township in Otter Tail county, where they lived for seven months. The following 12 months they resided in Dora township located in the same county. They then lived in Isanti county for 12 months, and thereafter in Washington county for about four months. 3 From Washington county they moved to Ramsey county, where they have continued to reside since July 1, 1944. Following the death of her husband in 1945, it became necessary for Mrs. Weidner to apply for public relief for herself and her minor children. Since January 1946 they have been receiving poor relief each month from the poor funds of Ramsey county. 4
All parties agree that since the Weidner family has not resided in Ramsey county for two full nonrelief years, and did not reside in either Isanti or Washington counties for a two-year period, they could not acquire a poor relief settlement in these counties, all of which have the county system of relief.
The trial court found that, excluding the residence in counties having the county system of poor relief, the Weidners had resided for the longest period of time in Dora township, Otter Tail county. Even though the period of residence in Otter Tail county was less than two years, the court determined that Dora township was the place of settlement for poor relief purposes and legally responsible for the support of the Weidner family. The court further found and ordered that Ramsey county be authorized to remove these poor persons to Dora township pursuant to § 261.09. Judgment was entered in accordance with the court's findings and order. Dora township appeals from the judgment.
The memorandum attached to the trial court's findings and conclusions indicates that as authority the court relied on the rule laid down in the cases of City of Minneapolis v. Village of Brooklyn Center, 223 Minn. 498, 27 N.W.2d 563, and In re Settlement of Schendel, 209 Minn. 466, 297 N.W. 27. In the City of Minneapolis case, this court considered the application of the provisions of § 261.07 to a case involving the determination of a poor settlement between two municipalities located in the same town-system county. The poor persons there had resided more than two years continuously within Hennepin county before seeking and obtaining poor relief, but had lived less than two years in the city of Minneapolis. The court, following In re Settlement of Schendel, supra, and In re Settlement of Stewart 216 Minn. 485, 13 N.W.2d 375, held that, since during the two-year period immediately preceding the obtaining of relief the poor persons had resided the longest period of time in the city of Minneapolis, said city was their place of legal settlement under § 261.07.
Appellant concedes the rule of these cases and admits that within a single county having the town system a poor relief settlement may shift to and devolve upon a town even where there has been less than two years' residence in the town, provided there has been two years' residence in the county wherein the town is situated. However, appellant contends that to acquire a settlement in another county § 261.07 requires as a condition precedent that there be two years' continuous residence therein, regardless of whether that county has the county or town system. The position of Lake Henry township is that this requirement applies only to counties having the county system.
The particular provisions of § 261.07 requiring interpretation read as follows: (Italics supplied.)
It is conceded that the pronoun 'it' and the adverb 'therein' must be read in conjunction with the preceding clause applicable to counties...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County Ditch No. 21 of Redwood County, In re
...on the presumption that the legislature did not intend absurd, unjust, or unreasonable consequences, citing County of Ramsey v. Township of Lake Henry, 234 Minn. 119, 47 N.W.2d 554. If § 106.501 were to be construed as appellants contend it should be, it would reduce the agricultural potent......
-
Bricelyn Sch. Dist. No. 132 v. Board of Co. Com'rs, of Faribault County
...as a unit. Such an absurd intention cannot be ascribed to the legislature. M.S.A. § 645.17(1). See, County of Ramsey v. Township of Lake Henry, 234 Minn. 119, 122, 47 N.W.2d 554, 556; Dahlberg v. Young, 231 Minn. 60, 64, 42 N.W.2d 570, 574; Stabs v. City of Tower, 229 Minn. 552, 557, 40 N.W......
-
State v. Kiminski
...legislature's intent, the Court should presume that the legislature did not intend an absurd or unreasonable result. Ramsey County vs. Lake Henry Township, 47 N.W.2d 554. Clearly, the sanctions for petty theft should not be as severe as those for aggravated forgery. Had the defendant stolen......