North Yarmouth v. West Gardiner
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Au action for pauper supplies. The only question in dispute was whether the pauper, John Johnson, had resided in West Gardiner for five successive years.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. Au action for pauper supplies. The only question in dispute was whether the pauper, John Johnson, had resided in West Gardiner for five successive years. There was evidence tending to show that the pauper was born in Monmouth (where his father had a settlement and died about 1808), lie being then about sixteen years of age; that he never acquired a new settlement in any other town, unless in West Gardiner; that his place of residence in West Gardiner was at one Davis’s, where he was “ off and on ” from 1882 to 1853, not stopping at any one time more than four years; that he…
1Opinion of the CourtDanforth, J.
The instruction excepted to and relied upon is as follows: “ If he left without any intention as to whether he would or would not return, or with only an indefinite and half-formed purpose not to return, but did, in fact, return without having established a residence elsewhere, his absence would not constitute an interruption of his residence in West Gardiner.”
This instruction assumes the fact that the pauper had established a residence in West Gardiner, and that ho had left there without an intention to return. The proposition, then, is, that if under this *210state of facts he does return…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Inhabitants of Wilbraham v. Inhabitants of LudlowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
3Cited by6 opinions
- Warren v. WarrenSupreme Court of Florida · 1917
- Stilwell v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Town of Jericho v. City of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1894
- Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. AbbottAlabama Court of Appeals · 1912
- Martinez Ex Rel. Morales v. BynumSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.