Town of Granville v. Town of Hancock
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action to recover expense incurred in supporting a pauper. Trial by jury at the December Term, 1895, Addison County, Taft, J., presiding. The right of recovery must depend upon the proof of a three years’ residence in the defendant town subsequent to the pauper’s return to the State. His return should not be held to revive his old residence. This construction will promote the object of the law by limiting the field of enquiry.
Read the full summary
Action to recover expense incurred in supporting a pauper. Trial by jury at the December Term, 1895, Addison County, Taft, J., presiding. The right of recovery must depend upon the proof of a three years’ residence in the defendant town subsequent to the pauper’s return to the State. His return should not be held to revive his old residence. This construction will promote the object of the law by limiting the field of enquiry. The case of Sandgate v. Rupert, 67 Yt. 258, if carried to its logical conclusion will defeat the plaintiff. The statute contemplates the right of redemption within…
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, C. J.
This is an action to recover for supporting a pauper. The court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. On the question of the residence of the pauper, in argument, the attorneys have treated, as proved, all facts which the exceptions state that the evidence tended to prove. We assume that they so treated them when each asked the court to direct the jury to return a verdict in favor of his client. We shall consider the case as though the exceptions stated that the evidence tending to show these facts was uncontroverted and that the parties waived the right to go to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Overseers of the Poor v. Overseers of the PoorSupreme Court of Vermont · 1829
3Cited by1 opinion
- Town of Cabot v. Town of St. JohnsburySupreme Court of Vermont · 1920