Town of Chaplin v. Town of Bloomfield

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WHEELER, J.
• Citation: Town of Chaplin v. Town of Bloomfield, 92 Conn. 395, 103 A. 118 (Conn. 1918)
• Decision Date: 12 March 1918
• Parties: TOWN OF CHAPLIN v. TOWN OF BLOOMFIELD.

103 A. 118

92 Conn. 395

TOWN OF CHAPLIN

v. TOWN OF BLOOMFIELD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 12, 1918.

Appeal from Superior Court, Windham County; William L. Bennett, Judge.

Action by Town of Chaplin against the Town of Bloomfield. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.

Albert C. Bill, of Hartford, for appellant. Samuel B. Harvey, of Willimantie, for appellee.

WHEELER, J. This cause is brought to determine whether the town of Bloomfield is responsible for support furnished by the town of Chaplin to Copeland, a pauper, between January 11, 1916, and March 27, 1916.

On October 31, 1908, Copeland had a settlement in Bloomfield. On this date he moved to Hartford with the intention of making his home there. From this date to March 20, 1911, Copeland resided continuously in Hartford with the exception of a three months' summer vacation in Chaplin in 1909, and a three months' temporary residence in Somers in 1910.

On March 20, 1911, Copeland was committed to the Connecticut Hospital for the Insane at Middletown by the probate court for the district of Hartford, and remained there until July 5, 1913, when he was discharged, maintaining himself, or being maintained by his estate, from March 31, 1908, to the date of his discharge. The same court in 1911 appointed a conservator of his person and estate. The finding does not state the residence of Copeland after his discharge from the Hospital for the Insane except that he resided in Chaplin when furnished the support which is the subject of this action.

Unless Copeland acquired a settlement by commorancy in Hartford, his settlement in Bloomfield continued. He never intended to change his residence from Hartford to Chaplin or Somers; his residence in these places was temporary, and did not break the continuity of his residence in Hartford. Town of Salem v. Town of Lyme, 29 Conn. 74, 80; Clinton v. Westbrook, 38 Conn. 9. When he was committed to the asylum, he had resided in Hartford nearly two years and five months. He resided in the asylum until discharged, a period of two years and three months.

To gain a settlement in Hartford Copeland must have resided four years continuously in that town, and have maintained himself and family during the whole of said period without becoming chargeable to such town. G. S. § 2469. Copeland maintained himself without becoming chargeable to Hartford from the time he moved to Hartford until his discharge from the asylum. One who "resides" in a town within the intendment of this statute is one who is an actual stated dweller as distinguished from a transient dweller, even though he have a technical domicile elsewhere. Kelsey v. Green, 69 Conn. 291, 301, 37 Atl. 679, 38 L. R. A. 471. Copeland must have resided in Hartford four years' continuously in order to be an actual dweller therein and come within the statute and gain a settlement by...