Yale v. W. Middle School-Dist

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ANDREWS, C. J.
• Citation: Yale v. W. Middle School-Dist, 13 L. R. A. 161, 22 A. 295, 59 Conn. 489 (Conn. 1890)
• Decision Date: 19 November 1890
• Parties: YALE v. WEST MIDDLE SCHOOL-DIST.

22 A. 295

59 Conn. 489

YALE

v. WEST MIDDLE SCHOOL-DIST.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 19, 1890.

Appeal from superior court, Hartford county; Thayer, Judge.

C. E. Gross, for appellant.

T. M. Maltbie, for appellee.

ANDREWS, C. J. The plaintiff is, and has been since May, 1887, a domiciled resident and tax-payer in the defendant school-district. Ada Austin, a child of 13 years, has been during all that time living with him as a member of his family. She attended school in said district. The defendant presented to the plaintiff a bill for her tuition, and threatened to exclude her from attending the school unless such bill was paid. The plaintiff thereupon preferred the present complaint to the superior court, praying that the district be enjoined from interfering in any manner with the attendance of the said Ada Austin at the school. The superior court granted the injunction, and the defendant has appealed to this court. The defendant insists that it has the right to require tuition to be paid for the schooling of the said Ada, for the reason that she did not so reside in or belong to the school-district that she could be enumerated as a person within school age residing therein. This claim implies— what was directly admitted by the counsel for the defendant—that, if she might lawfully be enumerated in the district, then she was entitled to attend school there without paying tuition. The said Ada is a niece of the plaintiff's wife. She was born in the state of Illinois, where her parents then resided. Her parents now reside in Missouri, and have never resided n this state. The plaintiff and his wife nave no children. In 1882 the child, then being six years old, came to live with the plaintiff, who then resided in Winchester, in this state, upon an arrangement between the plaintiff and his wife on the one hand, and the parents of the child on the other, that she should live with the plaintiff and his wife so long as they should live, unless she should sooner, by marriage or otherwise, make a home for herself. Pursuant to that arrangement, she has ever since resided with the plaintiff, and he has had the entire actual control over her, caring for her in all respects as though she was his own child. In May, 1887, the plaintiff removed from Winchester to Hurtford, purchased a lot within the school-district, built a house thereon, and has since that time resided there with his family, which consists only of himself, his wife, and the said Ada, and he has no intention of changing such residence. It is the expectation and the intent of the said Ada, and of her parents, and of the plaintiff and his wife, that she shall continue to live with the plaintiff and his wife as their own child so long as they shall live. The plaintiff and his wife have never formally adopted her according to the statute regulating the adoption of children. It is the claim of the defendant that no child can be properly enumerated in any school-district, as belonging thereto, so as to be entitled to instruction in its schools without tuition, unless such child has a legal residence in the sense of domicile therein, or is an apprentice to a master residing there, or is a pauper, and so a ward of the public. It is not pretended that...