Town of Fairfax v. Town of Westford
| Decision Date | 25 February 1895 |
| Citation | 31 A. 847,67 Vt. 390 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | TOWN OF FAIRFAX v. TOWN OF WESTFORD. |
Exceptions from Franklin county court; Taft, Judge.
Assumpsit by town of Fairfax against town of Westford for the support of a pauper. Heard upon an agreed statement of facts. Judgment for the defendant The plaintiff excepts. Affirmed.,
Watson & Flinn, for plaintiff.
D. J. Foster, for defendant.
It appears from the agreed statement of facts that Joseph Rousseau, the pauper in question, was born in the plaintiff town in 1869, where his father then lived and had his home. In 1873 the father moved from the plaintiff town to the defendant town with his family, including said Joseph, and lived there until 1881, when he and his family went to Massachusetts. In 1883 the whole family returned to the defendant town, and continued to live there until 1888, when the father again went to Massachusetts; leaving his son Felos, a young man about 24 years of age, in charge of the property and family, including said Joseph. The father went to Massachusetts for a temporary purpose, intending to return, but died while there, in June, 1888. After the father's death, Felos, as head of the family, continued to live in the defendant town, in charge of the property and family, including said Joseph, until May 24, 1800, when the family, including Joseph, moved to the plaintiff town, where they have since lived and had their home. Owing to the mental and physical condition of Joseph, he has ever been, and still is, Incompetent and incapable of taking care of himself, or of exercising any choice or intention as to residence. While the father was alive, and up to the time of his death, Joseph was supported by him; and since his death Joseph has continued to live in and been supported by the family, until he came to want May 6, 1893, in the plaintiff town. From this statement, it is clear that Joseph never resided in the defendant town for three years, supporting himself, within the meaning of No. 55 of the Acts of 1892. This act provides that if a person is poor, and in need of assistance for himself or family, it shall be the duty of the overseer of the poor of any town, when application for such assistance is made, to relieve such person or his family; and if such person has not resided in such town for three years, supporting himself and family, and is not of sufficient ability to provide such support, the town so furnishing assistance may recover the expense of the same from the town where such person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Glover v. Anderson
...son who was living in the family had no pauper settlement, there being no such thing as a derivative residence. Fairfax v. Westford, 67 Vt. 390, 392, 393, 31 A. 847. The matter of impaired intellect was also recognized in Westmore v. Sheffield, 56 Vt. 239, 244; Town of Topsham v. Chelsea, 6......
-
Town of St. Johnsbury v. Town of Sutton
...within the meaning of our pauper law. They did not take their father's residence if he had one, which did not appear, Fairfax v. Westford, 67 Vt. 390, 31 A. 847; Town of Jericho v. Morristown, 77 Vt. 367, 60 A. 233, nor had they or their mother gained one in their own right. And we agree wi......
-
Town of St. Johnsbury v. Town of Sutton
...within the meaning of our pauper law. They did not take their father's residence if he had one, which did not appear, Fairfax v. Westford, 67 Vt. 390, 31 A. 847; Jericho v. Morristown, 77 Vt. 367, 60 233, nor had they or their mother gained one in their own right. And we agree with defendan......
-
Town of Jericho v. Town of Morristown
...present act. As to the second ground: We do not regard this as an open question under the present act it is settled by Fairfax v. West ford, 67 Vt. 390, 31 Atl. 847. There the father of the pauper, who was an imbecile, hat a residence in the defendant town, but the pauper had none there in ......