Town of S. Burlington v. Town of Cambridge

• Decision Date: 20 February 1905
• Parties: TOWN OF SOUTH BURLINGTON v. TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

59 A. 1013

77 Vt. 289

TOWN OF SOUTH BURLINGTON

v. TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Chittenden.

Feb. 20, 1905.

Exceptions from Chittenden County Court; Munson, Judge.

Action by the town of South Burlington against the town of Cambridge. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings exceptions. Reversed.

Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, START, WATSON, and HASELTON, JJ.

Theo. E. Hopkins and Brown & Taft, for plaintiff.

T. C. Cheney, for defendant.

HASELTON, J. This was an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover for expenses incurred in the support of a pauper, one James Perry. In the county court the case was tried by the court on an agreed statement of facts, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $49.53, the amount of the expenses it had incurred in the support of the said James after the notice which will hereinafter be referred to was given and received. Aside from the notice, the facts material to the question of liability are these: James was born in Cambridge, October 17, 1871. His father died in May, 1887, and the family was kept together and resided in Cambridge until September, 1888, through the efforts of the mother, James, and a younger brother. On the last-named date, when, as will be seen, James was about 17 years of age, the mother married one Corrigan, with whom she lived in Cambridge until 1894. After said marriage "James supported himself by working at odd jobs in the town of Cambridge," and lived with his grandfather until September, 1895. He, however, occasionally visited the Corrigans, but, to use here the exact language of the agreed statement, "his mother did not claim to exercise and did not exercise any authority or control over his person or earnings, and he did not look to her for protection or advice." It should be further stated that down to September, 1895, he was unmarried and that he never resided in any town three full years, supporting himself, unless he so resided in Cambridge. Time went on, and in 1902, when James was about 31 years of age, he came to want in the town of South Burlington, and was assisted by that town.

The first question is, did James reside three full years in the town of Cambridge, supporting himself? Living, as he did, apart from his surviving and remarried parent, the presumption is that he was emancipated on reaching the age of 21, if not before. No question is made that James resided in Cambridge from the time that he became 21 until September, 1895. But by reference to the dates given it will be seen that this period lacked a month or so of three full years. The question, then, is, was James emancipated while a minor? The pauper law has undergone a variety of modifications, but the true definition of "emancipation" has not been materially affected. Upon and after the death of his father, James might have chosen a guardian, but the agreed statement does not show that he did. He was apparently content that the filial and parental...