City of Montpelier v. Town of Worcester
Supreme Court of Vermont
General Assumpsit to recover expenditures for the support of a pauper. Plea, the general issue. Trial by court in the Montpelier city court, Harvey, J. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. Words in a statute ought not to have a retrospective operation unless they are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the Legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied.
Read the full summary
General Assumpsit to recover expenditures for the support of a pauper. Plea, the general issue. Trial by court in the Montpelier city court, Harvey, J. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. Words in a statute ought not to have a retrospective operation unless they are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the Legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied. The language must imperatively require a retroactive construction before it will be given. Montpelier v. Senter, 72 Yt. 112; Sturgis v. Hull, 48 Yt. 307; Chew…
1Opinion of the CourtWatson, J.
It was held in Jericho v. Morristown, 77 Vt. 367, 60 Atl. 233, that a married woman does not gain a residence in her own right, nor derive one from her husband, by living with him in a town where he last'resided for three full years supporting himself and family, so as to make the town liable to another town in which she lives for support furnished to her as a pauper after the death of her husband. At the session of the Legislature next after the decision in that case was promulgated, an Act was passed section one of which reads: “A married woman who lives with her husband in a town where he…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Town of Worcester v. Town of East MontpelierSupreme Court of Vermont · 1888
- Town of Jericho v. Town of MorristownSupreme Court of Vermont · 1905