Inhabitants of Belmont v. Inhabitants of Morrill
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Action for pauper supplies furnished to the wife of Eobert Childs. The verdict was for the plaintiffs. The material facts appear in the opinion. cited: New Portland v. Kingfield, 55 Maine, 172 ; Gorinna v. Hartland, 70 Marne, 356 ; Weld v. Farmington, 68 Maine, 301; Norridgewock v. Madison, 70 Maine, 174; Hovey v. Hobson, 55 Maine, 276; Hennen v. Haskell, 45 Maine, 430; Millett v. Marston, 62 Maine, 477; Tarr v. Smith, 68 Maine, 97; Barrett v.Bangor, 70 Maine,…
Read the full summary
On exceptions. Action for pauper supplies furnished to the wife of Eobert Childs. The verdict was for the plaintiffs. The material facts appear in the opinion. cited: New Portland v. Kingfield, 55 Maine, 172 ; Gorinna v. Hartland, 70 Marne, 356 ; Weld v. Farmington, 68 Maine, 301; Norridgewock v. Madison, 70 Maine, 174; Hovey v. Hobson, 55 Maine, 276; Hennen v. Haskell, 45 Maine, 430; Millett v. Marston, 62 Maine, 477; Tarr v. Smith, 68 Maine, 97; Barrett v.Bangor, 70 Maine, 335; Wing v. Chesterfield, 116 Mass. 356.
1Opinion of the CourtSymonds, J.
In 1855, the town of Morrill was incorporated, from territory previously included in the town of Belmont. The father of Eobert Childs, husband of the alleged pauper, lived in Belmont from 1823 till the division of the town; and the plaintiffs claimed that for five years, preceding Eobert’s becoming of age, in December 1836, his father’s residence had been continuous there, without aid received from the town; and that the *232derivative settlement gained in this way by Robert Childs in the plaintiff town became fixed by operation of law in the town of Morrill, upon its incorporation. Spec, laws,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Town of Manchester v. Town of TownshendSupreme Court of Vermont · 1938
- City of Rutland v. Town of WallingfordSupreme Court of Vermont · 1937
- Niedzwiecki v. LaudatiSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1939