Town of Guilford v. Town of Norwalk

• Decision Date: 13 July 1900
• Citation: 73 Conn. 161,46 A. 881
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: TOWN OF GUILFORD v. TOWN OF NORWALK.

46 A. 881

73 Conn. 161

TOWN OF GUILFORD

v. TOWN OF NORWALK.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 13, 1900.

Case reserved from superior court, New Haven county; John M. Thayer, Judge.

Action by the town of Guilford against the town of Norwalk for injunction.Case reserved.Order granting a temporary injunction made perpetual.

Henry G. Newton and Ward Church, for plaintiff.Levi Warner, for defendant.

TORRANCE, J.In this case the town of Guilford obtained a temporary injunction against Norwalk, restraining it from removing certain paupers into Guilford.Norwalk filed a cross bill in the case, claimiug a removal of the injunction, and a judgment against Guilford for the amount expended by it on behalf of said paupers.The principal question in the case relates to the settlement of Henry White and his wife and children, the paupers in question; and the controlling facts, as agreed upon, bearing upon tnis question, are these: Henry White, a citizen of North Carolina, came from that state to the town of Guilford in December, 1889.He was then unmarried.He continued to reside in Guilford, and was married there in January, 1891.His wife was born in North Carolina, and came from that state to Guilford to reside about the same time that he came to reside there.They have ever since lived together as husband and wife.Mrs. White, when she came to Guilford, had a child with her, aged about 3 years.Since the marriage that child has lived with them as one of the family.Three children were born to them during their residence in Guilford, and one of these died there during such residence.Henry was made an elector in Guilford in 1892, and voted there at the fall election in that year, and from time to time thereafter during his residence there.He and his wife resided continuously in Guilford from December 24, 1889, until April 1, 1896, when he, with his wife and three children, removed to the town of Norwalk.During his residence in Guilford, White supported himself and family, and never became chargeable to said town.After his removal to Norwalk, one of the three children born in Guilford died in Norwalk, and since said removal his wife has borne to him two other children.On or about November 30, 1896, White and his family became poor, sick, and unable to support themselves, and were paupers.He applied to Norwalk for necessary support, and it was furnished by it; and Guilford was duly notified by Norwalk of all the facts in the case, as required by law.Neither White nor any of his family ever owned any property or paid taxes in Norwalk or Guilford.It is agreed that, if Guilford is only liable for the support of the children born in that town, Norwalk shall recover in this action the sum of $70 only for support of said children to May 10, 1900, and that the town of Guilford shall recover the costs of this action.It is agreed that Guilford is not liable to Norwalk unless it is so by law upon these facts, and that Norwalk has no right to remove the paupers to Guilford, as it was about to do when the injunction was granted, unless it had the right to do so upon these facts.

One of the important questions in this case is whether Henry White, by his more than six years' continuous residence in Guilford without becoming, either for himself or his family, chargeable to that town, gained a settlement therein.The answer to this question depends upon the construction of the sections of the General Statutes relating to settlements of this kind, which are directly applicable to the facts in this case, and these are sections 3285,3287, and3288.The first of these relates to the case of a "person who is not an inhabitant of this state, or of some state or territory of the United States"; the second, to that of an "inhabitant of any state or territory of the United States, this state excepted"; and the third, to that of an "inhabitant of any town in this state."With respect to the acquisition of a settlement in a town, these sections prescribe different rules for these different classes of persons, and the members of each class can gain a settlement only in the ways prescribed for the members of that class.The law, as embodied in these sections, has, with the exception of a short time between 1875 and 1879, been, in substance, the law of this state for the past 100 years;Revision 1808, p. 390, note 1;Id. p. 393.In 1875 the law, in the above respects, as it had theretofore existed, was radically changed.Pub. Acts 1875, c. 93.But subsequently, by the legislation which culminated in the adoption of the revision of 1888, the law was, in substance, restored to its condition prior to the passage of that act, and to that in which we find it as embodied in the sections above referred to.In the case at bar, Henry White clearly belongs to the second, and not to the first or third, class of persons described in said sections, and he could gain a settlement in Guilford only in the ways prescribed for his class in section 3287.That section provides that "no inhabitant of any state or territory of the United States, this state excepted, who may come to reside in any town in this state, shall gain a settlement therein,...