Town of Fairfax v. Town of Westford
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for the support of a pauper. Heard upon an agreed statement of facts at the April term, 1894, Franklin county, Taft, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. The pauper’s residence in his father’s family was his residence.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for the support of a pauper. Heard upon an agreed statement of facts at the April term, 1894, Franklin county, Taft, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. The pauper’s residence in his father’s family was his residence. Acts of 1892, No. 55 ; Wells v. West Haven, 5 Vt. 322; Morristown v. Fairfield, 46 Vt. 33 ; Anderson v. Anderson, 42 Vt. 350; Marshfield v. Tunbridge, 62 Vt. 455- He received no aid from any town, and therefore supported himself. Craftsbury v. Greensboro, 66 Vt. 585. It has been once decided that there can be no derivative residence.…
1Opinion of the CourtStart, J.
It appears from the agreed statement of *391facts that Joseph Rousseau, the pauper in question, was born in the plaintiff town in 1869, where his father then lived and had his home-. In 1873 the father moved from the plaintiff town to the defendant town with his family, including said Joseph, and lived there until 1881, when he and his family went to Massachusetts. In 1883 the whole family returned to the' defendant town, and continued to live there until 1888 when the father again went to Massachusetts, leaving his son Felos, a young man about twenty-four years of age, in charge of the property…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Town of Marshfield v. Town of TunbridgeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1890
3Cited by3 opinions
- Town of Danville v. Town of HartfordSupreme Court of Vermont · 1901
- Town of Jericho v. Town of MorristownSupreme Court of Vermont · 1905
- Town of St. Johnsbury v. Town of SuttonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1930