Town of Topsham v. Chelsea

• Decision Date: 16 May 1888
• Parties: TOWN OF TOPSHAM v. TOWN OF CHELSEA
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

13 A. 861

60 Vt. 219

TOWN OF TOPSHAM v. TOWN OF CHELSEA

Supreme Court of Vermont

May 16, 1888

GENERAL TERM, OCTOBER, 1887

ORDER of removal of a pauper. Heard on an agreed statement of facts, June Term, Orange County Court, 1886, ROWELL, J presiding. Judgment that the pauper was duly removed from the town of Topsham to the town of Chelsea.

That judgment is affirmed.

S B. Hebard, for the defendant.

OPINION

ROSS

The contention is in regard to the last legal settlement of the pauper, Mary Folsom. When the pauper became of age her father's legal settlement was in the town of Corinth. Soon after that date, the father moved with his family including the pauper, into the defendant town and there acquired a legal settlement. If the pauper took this last settlement of her father, or if she acquired a legal settlement in Chelsea in her own right by more than seven years' residence therein, unaided by the town, she was properly removed to the defendant town. The agreed facts do not very conclusively show whether the pauper possessed sufficient intellect and intelligence to exercise an intention and choice in regard to her place of residence. If she did, there being nothing in the agreed case to show that her residence in Chelsea was constrained, it is presumed to have been from choice and because she preferred to live there with her father, and she gained a legal settlement in Chelsea in her own right. But if the frequent fits of insanity, which began to occur before the pauper attained majority, had so impaired her intellect and intelligence, as it would seem quite probable it may have done, that she was incapable of exercising any choice or intention in regard to the place of her residence, then she was suffering from such mental and physical disability and infirmity as rendered it fit that she should remain with, and under the control, care and protection of her father; and she would not be emancipated on attaining majority, and would take the after-acquired settlement of her father in Chelsea. Hardwick v. Pawlet, 36 Vt. 320. Such a mental and physical condition would rebut the presumption of emancipation which arose from the attainment of majority. Whether emancipated or not, she resided continuously in the family of her father in Chelsea. Hence she either acquired a legal settlement there in her own right, or took the legal settlement acquired by her father. It is not material to determine which;...