Inhabitants of Searsmont v. Inhabitants of Lincolnville
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On MOTION AND EXCEPTIONS. The case is stated in the opinion. This is peculiarly a case in which the claim to a home is restricted to the house and family of a particular person. The pauper could not have had a home in Clark’s family without his permission. We search in vain for any evidence of such permission in the case. Corinth v. Lincoln, 34 Maine, 314. The verdict is wrong ; against the law and evidence and the weight of evidence in the case; and should be set aside.
Read the full summary
On MOTION AND EXCEPTIONS. The case is stated in the opinion. This is peculiarly a case in which the claim to a home is restricted to the house and family of a particular person. The pauper could not have had a home in Clark’s family without his permission. We search in vain for any evidence of such permission in the case. Corinth v. Lincoln, 34 Maine, 314. The verdict is wrong ; against the law and evidence and the weight of evidence in the case; and should be set aside. The instructions to which exceptions are taken are wrong, and misled the jury to the prejudice of the plaintiffs. In this…
1Opinion of the CourtVirgin, J.
Assumpsit founded on B. S., c. 24, § 35, for pauper supplies, furnished on March 21, 1889, to a man and his family whose settlement was alleged to be in Lincolnville.
Having admitted that the pauper had a settlement in their town in 1862, when he became twenty-one years of age, the law imposed upon the defendants the burden of satisfying the jury that thereafter he acquired a new settlement in Searsmont by having his home therein for "five successive years without receiving supplies as a pauper,” and that any absences therefrom during the five years were of such a character as not to interrupt…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Inhabitants of Moscow v. Inhabitants of SolonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1939