Town of New Haven v. City of Bridgeport

• Decision Date: 23 February 1897
• Citation: 37 A. 397,68 Conn. 588
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: TOWN OF NEW HAVEN v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

37 A. 397

68 Conn. 588

TOWN OF NEW HAVEN

v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 23, 1897.

Reserved from court of common pleas, New Haven county.

Action by the town of New Haven against the city of Bridgeport Heard on agreed statement of facts reserved.Judgment for plaintiff advised.

The statement of facts agreed upon by the parties is as follows: "One John L. Chapman, a person over the age of fourteen years, came from the state of Massachusetts to North Canaan, Conn., about July 1, 1890, where he remained nine months.He then moved to Bridgeport, which was about April 1, 1891.He was admitted as a voter in the city of Bridgeport, October 27, 1892.He remained in Bridgeport until September 11, 1895, when he and his family left Bridgeport, and moved to New Haven.On November 15, 1895, he resided in New Haven, and was poor and unable to support himself, and in immediate need of support.On said day, and until the 5th day of December next following, the selectmen of New Haven furnished him with necessary support, at an expense of $20, and further laid out and expended for his necessary support and maintenance on said — day of December, 1895, the sum of $27.60.On the — — day of December, 1895, the selectmen of New Haven gave due notice in writing to the board of public charities of the city of Bridgeport of the condition of the said Chapman, and that he was chargeable in New Haven.On the — — day of December, 1895, and on subsequent dates, the selectmen of New Haven presented to the board of public charities of said city of Bridgeporta bill of said expense, and demanded payment thereof.Said expense has never been repaid to the plaintiff."

Jacob P. Goodhart and Robert C. Stoddard, for plaintiff.

J. D. Toomey, Jr., for defendant.

ANDREWS, C. J.If Chapman was an inhabitant of North Canaan before he removed to Bridgeport, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount expended; otherwise, not.He had resided long enough in Bridgeport to gain a settlement there, if he had the legal capacity to acquire one; and this depends on the answer to be given to the question above stated, was he an inhabitant of North Canaan?In its general and popular sense, the word "inhabitant""is the same as 'resident,' or one who lives in a place.An inhabitant necessarily implies an inhabitation, an abode, a place of dwelling."Hartford Fire ins. Co. v. Town of Hartford, 3 Conn. 15, 24.The words of a statute are to be read in their...