Strutz v. Perkins Co., 8545

• Decision Date: 14 May 1943
• Docket Number: 8545
• Parties: STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, ex rel. ALVIN C. STRUTZ, Appellant, v. PERKINS COUNTY, Respondent.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

69 SD 270, 9 NW2d 500 (1943)

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, ex rel. ALVIN C. STRUTZ, Appellant v PERKINS COUNTY, Respondent South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from Circuit Court, Perkins County, SD Hon. Frank Gladstone, Judge #8545—Reversed Alvin C. Strutz, Atty. Gen., State of North Dakota, P. O. Sathre, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, SD Van Slyke & Agor, Aberdeen, SD Attorneys for Appellant. F. J. Reeder, C. G. Carrell, Leslie Hersrud, Lemmon, SD Attorney for Respondent. Opinion filed May 14, 1943

ROBERTS, P.J.

Roy A. Hulm resided in Perkins County prior to June 25, 1937, when he, with his wife and ten children moved to Bismarck, Burleigh County, North Dakota. The family continued to receive, after its departure from this state, public relief from Perkins County until July, 1938. The District Court of Burleigh County, North Dakota, on September 1, 1938, in the exercise of authority conferred by Chapter 119, North Dakota Laws 1935, made an order as follows : “It is hereby ordered That the Sheriff of Burleigh County, North Dakota, or his deputy, forthwith take and convey the said defendants Roy A. Hulm, and Mrs. Roy A. Hulm and dependents to the state line between North Dakota and South Dakota, at a place nearest the said Perkins County, South Dakota, the place of legal residence of said defendants for relief purposes as aforesaid.”

Perkins County denied liability contending that under the provisions of SDC 50.0102(6) this indigent family because of its absence from the state for a period of thirty days did not have a legal settlement in the county. The trial court was of the opinion that the family had abandoned its residence in Perkins County and no longer had a legal settlement in this state.

The allegations of the complaint, the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by counsel for the plaintiff suggest the following possible grounds upon which plaintiff sought judgment in the court below: (1) that SDC 50.0102 “is unreasonable and arbitrary and not passed in good faith but passed for the sole purpose of arbitrarily relieving the State of South Dakota and its counties from their legal liability to their indigents” and is in violation of the due process clauses of both the federal and state constitutions and the privilege and immunity clause of our state constitution, and that plaintiff is entitled to judgment permitting the deportation of the family into Perkins County; (2) and that under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States (§ 1, Art. 4) the judgment rendered by the District Court of Burleigh County, North Dakota, a court, of record and of general jurisdiction, which deter mined the legal settlement of the Hulm family to be in Perkins County, this state, is conclusive as to the merits adjudicated.

Plaintiff has pleaded at length the statutes of North Dakota pertaining to settlement for relief purposes. It is contended that because of their indigent status the father and the members of his family can not acquire a .settlement for relief purposes in that state. These statutes -do not have extra territorial force, but are local in their nature and operation. These indigent persons do not necessarily continue to have a settlement in this state because they have not acquired another in the state to which they have removed.

It is argued that the trial court did not give full faith and credit to the records and judicial proceedings of the District Court of Burleigh County. There was no service .of process on defendant county and it did not voluntarily appear in the proceeding. The determination of that court that the indigent persons had a legal settlement in Perkins County is not binding in the courts of this state in so far as it involves a county which was not a party to the proceedings and did not appear therein and no denial of full faith and credit to judicial proceedings in a sister state is involved. Hall et al. v. Lanning et al., 91 US 160, 23 LEd 271; Board of Public Works of Virginia v. Columbia College et al., 17 Wall. 521, 21 LEd 687. The decree may too involve the problem of interstate removal of indigent persons. A statute making it a misdemeanor to bring indigent persons into a state has been recently held invalid. Edwards v. California, 314 US 160, 62 SCt 164,...