Town of Danville v. Town of Hartford

• Decision Date: 24 August 1901
• Citation: 50 A. 1082,73 Vt. 300
• Parties: TOWN OF DANVILLE v. TOWN OF HARTFORD.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

50 A. 1082

73 Vt. 300

TOWN OF DANVILLE

v. TOWN OF HARTFORD.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Caledonia.

Aug. 24, 1901.

Exceptions from Caledonia county court; Taft, Chief Judge.

Action by the town of Danville against thetown of Hartford to recover for the support of a pauper. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant excepts. Reversed, and judgment rendered for defendant.

Argued before ROWELL, TYLER, MUNSON, START, and WATSON, JJ.

Dunnett & Slack, for plaintiff.

William Batchelder, for defendant.

START, J. It appears that the pauper has, from childhood, been of weak mind and incapable of exercising any choice or intention in regard to her place of residence, and, for this reason, during the life of her parents, remained unemancipated; that her father, for many years prior to his death, in 1804, resided in the defendant town, supporting himself and family; and that after the father's death the pauper resided with her mother until the death of her mother, in July, 1886. It does not appear that the mother ever resided in any town in the state for three years, maintaining herself and family; but it does appear that from 1878 to the time of her death she was assisted, as the head of her family, by the defendant in the support of the pauper. In 1883 the mother, while residing in the defendant town, removed with the pauper to the plaintiff town, intending to reside there permanently, and did reside there until her death. After the death of the mother, the pauper remained with her sister in the plaintiff town, and the defendant paid for her support for several years, when it refused to further support her. Some time in 1892 the plaintiff assumed her support, and continued to provide for her for several years, when it refused to support her, and called upon the defendant to do so. In 1895 the defendant again assumed the support of the pauper, and provided for her until March, 1899, when it again refused to furnish support Since then the pauper has been provided for by the plaintiff.

The pauper being unemancipated during her stay in the defendant town, she never resided in that town, within the meaning of the pauper law of 1886, and the defendant is not chargeable with her support by reason of her stay in that town. Town of Marshfleld v. Town of Tunbridge, 62 Vt 455, 20 Atl. 106. And the defendant is not liable by reason of the residence of the pauper's father. He was never a poor person in need of assistance. He died long before the pauper came to want. She having no residence in her own right, no action could be maintained by a town for her support unless she was a member of a family then in existence, the head of which was in need of assistance for himself and family. The pauper act does not provide for a derivative residence. Town of Fairfax v. Town of Westford, 67 Vt. 300, 31 Atl. 847. And the defendant is not under a legal duty to support the pauper by reason of the residence of her mother in the defendant town when assistance was first furnished by the defendant. The pauper being un-emancipated at that time, she was not a poor person in need of assistance for herself and family. It was her mother who was the poor person in need of assistance, and to whom assistance was furnished. It appearing that when the mother removed from the defendant town with the pauper, she went to the plaintiff town to reside, she was not a transient person in the plaintiff town; and at that time, there being no order of removal, the defendant was under no legal duty to support her in that town, or her unemancipated daughter. Town of New Haven v. Town of Middlebury, 63 Vt 399, 21 Atl. 608. If the act of 1892, which provides for an action when the pauper has not resided in the town furnishing the support for three years, supporting himself and family, is considered retroactive, the defendant is not liable by reason of the mother's residence in the defendant...