Town of Brookfield v. Town of Hartland
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an appeal from an order of removal of Phebe Hatch, from Brookfield to Hartland. Plea, that she was unduly removed. Upon the trial in the county court, the following facts were proved. In March, 1818, Justus Hatch, the husband of said Phebe, had his legal settlement in Hartland, and there resided with said Phebe, his wife.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order of removal of Phebe Hatch, from Brookfield to Hartland. Plea, that she was unduly removed. Upon the trial in the county court, the following facts were proved. In March, 1818, Justus Hatch, the husband of said Phebe, had his legal settlement in Hartland, and there resided with said Phebe, his wife. On the 20th of March, 1818, he went to Roxbury, taking with him some farming tools and provisions, and there commenced farming, leaving said Phebe keeping house with his family in Hart-land. On the 20th of June, 1818, he removed the said Phebe and family to Roxbury,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
In this case, the only question to be determined is, whether the pauper, Phebe Hatch, having resided in Brookfield more than seven years since the passing of the act of 1817, gained a legal settlement thereby. She did, unless her having been under coverture, some portion of the time, prevented it.
It was intimated in Barnet v. Concord, 4 Vt. R. 564, and again in Brookfield v. Hartland, in relation to this same pauper, 6 Vt. R. 401, — that such residence was not sufficient *426to gain a settlement. The court are now of the same opinion.
It is true…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Town of Marshfield v. Town of TunbridgeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1890
- Town of Poultney v. Town of GloverSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
- Town of Woodstock v. Town of HartlandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
- Town of Jericho v. Town of MorristownSupreme Court of Vermont · 1905