Town of Fairfield v. Town of Easton

• Decision Date: 29 May 1901
• Citation: 73 Conn. 735,49 A. 200
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: TOWN OF FAIRFIELD v. TOWN OF EASTON.

49 A. 200

73 Conn. 735

TOWN OF FAIRFIELD

v. TOWN OF EASTON.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 29, 1901.

Case reserved from court of common pleas, Fairfield county; Howard J. Curtis, Judge.

Action by the town of Fairfield against the town of Easton.From a judgment in favor of plaintiff in a justice's court, defendant appealed to the court of common pleas, which found the facts and reserved the case for the advice of the supreme court Judgment advised for defendant.

Action to recover for support furnished to a pauper, brought originally before a justice of the peace, and thence by defendant's appeal to the court of common pleas in Fairfield county, and tried to the court.Facts found, and case reserved for the consideration and advice of this court.Judgment advised for the defendant The material facts found are these.Alfred Stillson, the pauper in question, a bachelor 66 years old, was born in Newtown, and lived there continuously at an old homestead until the house thereon was burned down, in October, 1804.He owned three-sevenths of the homestead, subject to a mortgage, and had no other means.At the time of the fire he was living on the homestead with a nephew.After the house burned down, he lived here and there with friends in Newtown until March, 1805, when he visited around temporarily with friends in Easton, intending to return to the old homestead, and going back to Newtown about the middle of June of that year."On or about July 1, 1895,"he went to the house of his sister, in Easton, to live, and thereafter continued to live there, with her consent, until May, 1899.In doing this, he intended to remain at his sister's house as his home so long as she would keep him, and had no intention to return to his former place of residence, or to make any other place his home, so long as she would keep him, and had no definite intention as to what he would do if at any time she refused longer to keep him.

During the time that he thus lived at his sister's house, he kept a bed and a few other articles of furniture at the old homestead at Newtown, and continued to own his interest in said homestead, and each year made three or four temporary visits to Newtown, and voted there in 1896 and on one other occasion.

From the facts stated in the preceding paragraph, and from the declarations of Stillson, the court finds that, during the time of his residence at his sister's aforesaid, Stillson "intended to and did claim Newtown as his residence, in order to maintain his right to a settlement there as a pauper."If, in view of the other facts found, the facts and intentions above stated "can properly be held to establish a domicile for Alfred at Newtown from July, 1895, to May, 1899, or for any intermediate period, he had such domicile; otherwise, I find that his domicile was at Easton after July, 1895."In May, 1899, Stillson made a visit to Newtown; and while he was there his sister, being aged and quite ill, concluded mat she could no longer keep him, sent him notice to that effect, which he received, and had the few things that he owned packed and sent to him, at Newtown, where he received and stored them.Thereafter he visited around among his relatives in Newtown, spent one day in Easton, called at his sister's house, and she refused to let him remain there longer, took a tramp to New Milford, and finally, on July 1, 1899, went to his nephew's, at the old homestead, and lived there with him in the barn until November 1, 1899.Prior to this, he, on June 12, 1899, in settlement of a debt, had conveyed his interest in the homestead to his nephew by a deed drawn by the town clerk of Newtown, In which deed Stillson was described as of the town of Easton.In August, 1899, he applied to Newtown for aid as a pauper, and his application was denied.About November 1, 1899, he went to the home of a brother-in-law in Easton, where he stayed till about Thanksgiving Day, when he applied to Easton for aid as a pauper, but, receiving none, he went to Fairfield, where he has since remained."In and after May, 1899, said Alfred had no intention to change his domicile, and I find it to have continued wherever it was at and before said time."

Daniel Davenport and Elmore S. Banks, for plaintiff.

Curtis Thompson, for defendant,

TORRANCE, J.(after stating the facts).Upon the facts found, it is clear that prior to July 1, 1895, Stillson had no settlement in Easton.The ultimate question in the case is whether he acquired one by commorancy there after that time.The burden of proving that he did is upon the plaintiff, and, unless the facts found show that h...