City of Rutland v. Town of Proctor
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for the support of certain paupers. Plea, the general issue. Heard upon the report of a referee at the September term, 1895, Rutland county, Rdss, C. J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts. The question was whether the paupers had a sufficient residence to charge the defendant town. The town of Proctor, the defendant, was created by No. 137, Acts of 1886, out of territory formerly embraced within the town of Rutland.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for the support of certain paupers. Plea, the general issue. Heard upon the report of a referee at the September term, 1895, Rutland county, Rdss, C. J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts. The question was whether the paupers had a sufficient residence to charge the defendant town. The town of Proctor, the defendant, was created by No. 137, Acts of 1886, out of territory formerly embraced within the town of Rutland. The referee found that the pauper had resided within the territorial limits of Proctor for more than three years, supporting himself and…
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
The defendant cannot be made liable for the support of the paupers in question under No. 45, Acts of 1892, unless it is shown that the three years’ continuous residence of the paupers was subsequent to the organization of the town in March, 1887. Such a three years’ residence partly before and partly subsequent to the organization is not sufficient. The question is not affected by s. 3 of the act of incorporation of the defendant. The disposition of this question renders the other questions raised immaterial.
Judgment reversed and judgment for the defendant.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Town of Westfield v. Town of CoventrySupreme Court of Vermont · 1899