Town of Manchester v. Town of Townshend

• Decision Date: 01 November 1938
• Docket Number: 115
• Parties: TOWN OF MANCHESTER v. TOWN OF TOWNSHEND
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

2 A.2d 207

110 Vt. 136

TOWN OF MANCHESTER v. TOWN OF TOWNSHEND

No. 115

Supreme Court of Vermont

November 1, 1938

October Term, 1938.

1. Application for Relief Need Not Be Made by Pauper under P. L 3923---2. When Duty of Overseer to Furnish Relief Arises---3. Burden of Proof in Action between Towns under P. L. 3923---4. What Evidence Required of Defendant---5. Burden of Proof as to Self-Supporting Residence Remains with Plaintiff though Burden of Evidence May Shift---6. Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence Distinguished---7. Defendant's Evidence on Issue of Application to Overseer Held Sufficient---8. Presumption of Regularity in Respect to Acts of Public Officer---9. Burden of Proof as to Lack of Application for Relief Held to Rest on Plaintiff---10. Every Reasonable Intendment to Be Made in Support of Judgment---11. Doubtful Findings to Be Read to Support Judgment If Possible---12. Doubt as to Weight of Evidence to Be Resolved against Exceptor, and Evidence Read in Light Most Favorable to Findings---13. Defendant Merely Required to Go Forward with Evidence to Repel Any Prima Facie Case Raised by Plaintiff---14. Burden of Going Forward with Evidence on Issue as to Nature of Relief Furnished by Defendant Held Shifted Back to Plaintiff---15. Refusal to Find Aid Furnished by Defendant Not Necessary Held Justified---16. Nonappearance of Pauper's Name in Town Reports as Receiving Aid Held Immaterial---17. Receipt of Aid from Trust Fund Given Town for Use in Poor Relief Held to Prevent Establishment of Self-Supporting Residence.

1. It is not required under P. L. 3923 that application for pauper aid be made by pauper personally in order to interrupt establishment of three-year self-supporting residence.

2. Duty of overseer of poor to furnish relief to poor person arises and becomes ineludible when he receives information, however conveyed, that relief is required.

3. In action between towns under P. L. 3923 to recover expenses of pauper aid furnished by plaintiff, burden was on plaintiff throughout trial of proving all essential facts of its claim including three-year, self-supporting residence of pauper in defendant town.

4. In such action, all defendant was called upon to do was to go far enough with its evidence to prevent preponderance in plaintiff's favor; it was under no duty to prove anything, since it made no affirmative defense.

5. In such action, though showing by plaintiff that pauper lived in defendant town for more than three years may have made prima facie case that he was self-supporting during that time, so as to place on defendant burden of going forward with evidence to show that he received pauper aid from defendant during that time, burden of proof was not affected and always remained on plaintiff.

6. While burden of evidence, or of going forward with evidence may pass from one party to the other as a case progresses yet "burden of proof," meaning obligation to establish truth of claim upon which plaintiff rests his case, is upon him throughout.

7. In action between towns under P. L. 3923 to recover expenses of pauper aid furnished by plaintiff, where evidence tended to show that during time of his alleged self-supporting residence in defendant town pauper worked a good share of the time for overseer of poor of that town, who was thus in a position to have it brought to his attention that relief was needed and who testified that as overseer he helped pauper a little, held there was evidence that overseer received information that aid was needed sufficient to sustain burden on defendant of going forward with evidence after plaintiff had made prima facie case by proving pauper's residence in defendant town, as against plaintiff's objection that no application for relief of pauper was made.

8. Acts which purport to have been done by public officers in their official capacity, and within the scope of their duty, will be presumed to have been regular and in accordance with their authority.

9. In action between towns under P. L. 3923 to recover expenses of pauper aid furnished by plaintiff, where there was evidence that pauper during time of his alleged self-supporting residence in defendant town received a little aid from overseer of such town, plaintiff, in order to sustain its burden of showing self-supporting residence during three years in question, had first to prove that relief given was not pauper aid required by law because, as claimed by it, no application within meaning of the law was made, and it was essential to plaintiff's claim on this point that it obtain a finding to this effect.

10. In such action, where trial was by court, every reasonable intendment was to be made in support of the judgment.

11. In such action, where trial was by court, doubtful findings were to be read so as to support the judgment, if they reasonably might be.

12. In such action, where trial was by court, doubt as to weight of evidence would be resolved against the exceptor, and Supreme Court would read evidence in light most favorable to findings.

13. In action between towns under P. L. 3923 to recover expenses of pauper aid furnished by plaintiff, defendant had no burden of showing that during time of his alleged self-supporting residence in defendant town pauper was poor person in need of assistance and that relief furnished was necessary, but was merely required to go forward with burden of evidence to repel and defeat any prima facie case raised by plaintiff's evidence of a self-supporting residence.

14. In such action, where evidence tended to show that during time of his alleged self-supporting residence in defendant town pauper received comparatively small wages when he worked and overseer of town during that time testified that he, as overseer, helped pauper a little, burden of going forward with evidence was then cast on plaintiff, and it was incumbent on plaintiff to prove that such relief was not furnished to pauper as one standing in need of relief and to obtain finding to that effect.

15. In such action, refusal of trial court to find as requested that aid furnished pauper during time of his alleged self-supporting residence in defendant town was not necessary was without error where evidence on this issue was not uncontroverted as claimed by plaintiff, its weight being for trial court to determine.

16. In such action, fact that name of pauper did not appear in town reports as being aided by defendant town during period of his alleged self-supporting residence there was of no material consequence where it was shown that pauper received some aid from overseer of poor, which was furnished from income of trust fund given town to be used for support of poor.

17. In such action, where pauper during time of his alleged self-supporting residence in defendant town received aid from overseer of town which was paid from income of trust fund, which according to will setting up trust was given to town, the interest thereon to be applied "in providing for and comfortably supporting the poor of said town," where such income was customarily used to pay town's expense for poor and was main source of funds for pauper relief, part being appropriated by the trustees for specific purposes and part being turned over to overseer for use in paying poor bills and accounted for by him both to trustees of fund and to town auditors, and where it appeared that persons receiving help from such income of the trust fund would otherwise have needed help from general funds of town, held that funds when appropriated by trustees and turned over to overseer for relief of poor became town relief money to same extent as though coming from general town funds, so as to prevent pauper from establishing three-year, self-supporting residence.

ACTION OF CONTRACT on P. L. 3923 against town to recover for support of pauper. Plea, the general issue. Trial by court at the December Term, 1937, Bennington County, Sherman, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The opinion states the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Franklin P. Jones for the plaintiff.

Herbert G. Barber for the defendant.

Present: MOULTON, C. J., SHERBURNE, BUTTLES, STURTEVANT and JEFFORDS, JJ.

OPINION

JEFFORDS

This is an action brought under sec. 3923 of the Public Laws to recover of the defendant the expenses of pauper aid furnished one Carl Woodard and his family by the plaintiff. Trial by court. Judgment was rendered for the defendant and the case comes here on exceptions of the plaintiff.

This assistance was furnished at various times over the period extending from December, 1934, to August, 1937. It was found that Woodard was, during this time, a poor person and in need of assistance.

The required statutory notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed that Woodard last resided in defendant town for the space of three years supporting himself and family and brought this action to recover from defendant on that theory.

It was found that the residence of Woodard was in defendant town as early as May 31, 1912, and so continued therein until 1916. During all this time John H. Ware was both overseer of the poor of Townshend and one of the trustees of the Howard trust fund hereinafter referred to.

In 1914 and 1915 Ware helped Woodard and his family a little, but not much, each year with funds derived from the Howard trust.

The Court also found as follows:

12. "The Court finds that the said Carl Woodard and his family last resided for the space of three years, supporting himself and family, prior to his being helped as aforesaid by the Town of Manchester, in the Town of Townshend, unless as a matter of law certain payments to him or articles furnished him through J. H. Ware from funds...