Town of Greensborough v. Town of Underhill
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an appeal from an order of removal of certain paupers, and was tried in the county court by a jury, on the issue, whether they were duly or unduly removed. The paupers, whose settlement came in question, were Margaret, the alleged wife of one Burdick, her child by said Burdick, and another child of hers, which was born before her alleged intermarriage with said Burdick.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order of removal of certain paupers, and was tried in the county court by a jury, on the issue, whether they were duly or unduly removed. The paupers, whose settlement came in question, were Margaret, the alleged wife of one Burdick, her child by said Burdick, and another child of hers, which was born before her alleged intermarriage with said Burdick. It was conceded, for the puposes of the trial, that said Burdick was legally settled in the town of Underhill; and the sole question was, whether the marriage between said Burdick and his alleged wife, aforesaid, was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
— The paupers, whose settlement is drawn in question, are the alleged wife of one Burdick, her child, by Burdick, and also another child of hers, born before her alleged marriage with him. It is admitted in the case that the legal settlement of Burdick is in Underhill, and the only question of law presented in the case is this. Is the intermarriage of Burdick with the pauper, in 1836, rendered illegal and void from the fact of her intermarriage with Hyland in 1834, who, after a short cohabitation with her, absconded and has not, since been…
2Cited by30 opinions
- Cartwright v. McGownIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
- State v. PikeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870
- Hunter v. HunterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Wenning v. TeepleIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
- Boulden v. McIntireIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.