Town of Ellington v. Indus. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 25 May 1937 |
| Citation | 225 Wis. 169,273 N.W. 530 |
| Parties | TOWN OF ELLINGTON v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County; Alvin C. Reis, Judge.
Affirmed.
Proceedings were commenced on March 20, 1936, before the Industrial Commission by the town of Dale against the town of Ellington and Outagamie county, to recover certain sums expended by the town of Dale furnishing relief to one Herbert Borgwardt, whose legal settlement was asserted to be town of Ellington. After a hearing, the Industrial Commission made findings of fact and a determination that Herbert Borgwardt had a legal settlement in the town of Ellington, and that the latter town was indebted to the town of Dale for relief up to and including January 1, 1936. From this determination, the town of Ellington appealed to the circuit court for Dane county, which on October 19, 1936, entered judgment reversing the award of the Industrial Commission. The Industrial Commission appeals. The material facts will be stated in the opinion.
Orland S. Loomis, Atty. Gen., Warren H. Resh, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Norris E. Maloney, of Madison, for appellant.
Walter Melchior, of New London, for defendant Town of Dale.
Oscar J. Schmiege, of Appleton (Harold M. Wilkie and W. E. Torkelson, both of Madison, of counsel), for respondent.
Herbert Borgwardt and his family were residents of the town of Dale from 1913 to April 6, 1930. During all of this period Borgwardt was engaged in the operation of a blacksmith shop and was self-supporting. Sometime prior to April 6, 1930, he disposed of the shop for the sum of $500 and moved to the city of Milwaukee, where he resided for approximately eleven months, during which time the family was supported by the proceeds of the sale and such employment as Borgwardt could obtain in the city of Milwaukee. During this period the Borgwardt family received some gifts from relatives in the form of clothing and food. By March 5, 1931. Borgwardt had exhausted his resources except the cash surrender value of two insurance policies upon his life and a few items of personal property. On or about that time he moved to the city of Oshkosh, the cost of transportation being supplied by his father-in-law. The family resided in Oshkosh for about three months, and during that time his rent and light bill were paid, and food for the family furnished, by his father-in-law. No application was made for relief either to the city of Oshkosh or to any charitable or benevolent institution or organization. On or about May 15, 1931, Borgwardt purchased a blacksmith shop in the town of Ellington, the purchase price being $250, of which $20 was paid in cash and the rest of the purchase price “worked off.” During the following months, Borgwardt had some income from the blacksmith business and other work, but the major part of his support was furnished him by his father-in-law. No requests were made for relief or assistance to any public agency or private charity during the residence of the family in Ellington. On November 5, 1932, after a residence of approximately seventeen months in Ellington, Borgwardt and his family returned to the town of Dale. By this time one of his policies had been cashed and the proceeds applied to the premiums upon the other policy. After moving to the town of Dale, the last policy was cashed and the proceeds used for support of the family. Borgwardt occupied a house in Dale owned by Borgwardt's father-in-law. Upon his last removal, Borgwardt disposed of his automobile and other items of personal property and obtained sufficient money to support himself for a time. The father-in-law continued to supply money to the extent of five or ten dollars a month. In the spring of 1933, before the Borgwardt family had been in Dale a year, they received from the town officials of Dale four bags of Red Cross flour. This was given to the family at the request of Mr. Borgwardt. In June, 1933, having lived in the town of Dale for somewhat less than a year, written application was made by Borgwardt to the town of Ellington for relief, but this application was refused. Application was made to the town of Dale for relief on November 8, 1933, one year and three days subsequent to his removal to that town. On March 1, 1934, he again applied for relief to the town of Dale, and since that time has been on relief continuously. It was stipulated by the parties that the statutory notice pursuant to section 49.03 was properly served by the town of Dale on Outagamie county, and by the county upon the town of Ellington. It was further stipulated that the county of Outagamie had reimbursed the town of Dale for relief given to the Borgwardts to the extent of $142.81, and that the town of Ellington has failed to pay the county of Outagamie that sum. The town of Ellington has also failed to reimburse the town of Dale for the balance of the relief furnished, amounting to $396.32.
This appeal involves the applications of section 49.02 (4) and (7), which read as follows:
***
“Every settlement when once legally acquired shall continue until it be lost or defeated by acquiring a new one in this state or by voluntary and uninterrupted absence from the town, village, or city in which such legal settlement shall have been gained for one whole year of upward; and upon acquiring a new settlement or upon the happening of such voluntary and uninterrupted absence all former settlements shall be defeated and lost.”
The purpose of the statute is thus described in Town of Rolling v. City of Antigo, 211 Wis. 220, 248 N.W. 119, 120: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Stetzer v. Chippewa Cnty.
-
Milwaukee Cnty. v. Oconto Cnty.
...supported by his brother-in-law until March, 1937, amounted to a continuance of pauper support. In Town of Ellington v. Industrial Comm., 225 Wis. 169, 175, 273 N.W. 530, 532, where the person whose legal settlement was in question was supported principally by his father-in-law during the y......
-
Dane Cnty. v. Barron Cnty.
...friends who come to his assistance because of affection or family pride does not thereby become a pauper. Town of Ellington v. Industrial Comm., 1937, 225 Wis. 169, 273 N.W. 530. Upon the general topic of under what circumstances a poor person is entitled to receive relief, see Peabody v. T......