Town of Starksboro v. Town of Hinesburgh
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an appeal from an order of removal, made by the town of Starksborough, of one Lyman Bostwick and wife, to the town of Hinesburgh. Plea, that the pauper was unduly removed, and trial by jury.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order of removal, made by the town of Starksborough, of one Lyman Bostwick and wife, to the town of Hinesburgh. Plea, that the pauper was unduly removed, and trial by jury. On the trial in the county court, the plaintiffs claimed that the pauper had a settlement in Hinesburgh, under the act of 1797, and introduced the pauper as a witness,whose testimony, in substance, was, that he was born in Connecticut, in the year 1768,where he resided till about 1790,when he removed to Essex, Vermont, and resided there till January or February, ^797 or 1793^ when he moved to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
It seems, the pauper was born in Connecticut, where he resided until about the year 1790, when he removed into Essex, in this state, and resided in that place till 1797 or 1798, when he removed into Hinesburgh, where he resided till March, 18Q2 ; and the inquiry is, whether he gained a settlement in Hineshurgh under the act of 1797. It is contended, on the part of Starksborough, that the pauper gained a settlement in Hinesburgh, under that clause of the statute of 1797, which enacts that a settlement may be gained in cases where the person “…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Town of Burlington v. Town of CalaisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1829
3Cited by8 opinions
- Galloway v. Town of TavaresSupreme Court of Florida · 1896
- United States v. SugarDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1917
- In re DasslerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
- Town of Strafford v. Town of SharonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1888
- State v. Waterville Savings BankSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1878
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.