Town of Rupert v. Town of Winhall
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appeal from an order of removal of Austin Perham, a pauper from the town of Rupert to the town of Winhall. The following: were agreed upon as the facts in. reference to tire pauper’s ■ settlement : Paul Perham, the father of the pauper, never had any legal settlement in this state. He was married to the pauper’s mother, Rachel Vail, in Winhall, in 1837. She was the daughter of' Edward Vail who always had his settlement in Winhall.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of removal of Austin Perham, a pauper from the town of Rupert to the town of Winhall. The following: were agreed upon as the facts in. reference to tire pauper’s ■ settlement : Paul Perham, the father of the pauper, never had any legal settlement in this state. He was married to the pauper’s mother, Rachel Vail, in Winhall, in 1837. She was the daughter of' Edward Vail who always had his settlement in Winhall. The pauper’s father and mother lived and cohabited together as husband and wife until the death of the mother, which occurred at Pawlet in 1849. At this time the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, Ch. J.
The facts in this case raise a question somewhat similar to that which was decided in the case of Hartland v. Windsor, in Windsor county, at the last term.
Since the Revised Statutes of 1839 came in force legitimate children take the settlement of the mother if the father have no settlement in the state. This was the rule of the common law. And in England cases may be found where the wife and children have been removed to the maiden settlement of the mother during the coverture and cohabitation. The practice has been otherwise in this…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Town of Dummerston v. Town of NewfaneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864
- Town of Danville v. Town of WheelockSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874
- City of Minneapolis v. Township of WhitefieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- In Re Settlement of RutlandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943