The town of Oxford against the town of Bethany

The town of Oxford against the town of Bethany : IN ERROR. Where a portion of the territory of one town, is, by an act of the legislature, annexed to another town, a person having a settlement in the former town, at the time of such annexation, on the territory annexed, has his settlement transferred, with the territory, to the latter town. And it makes no difference as to the transfer of such person’s settlement, if he was, at the time of the annexation, residing at the poor-house for support, not on the territory annexed. Where the act annexing a portion of the town of O. to B., provided, that B. should support such part of the actual paupers of the town of O. as the list of the territory set off to B., bore to the whole list of O.; it was held, that the object of this provision was, to divide the expense of supporting such paupers, but not to affect their settlement. Nor would an agreement between the towns, that one portion of the paupers should be supported by one town, and the residue, by the other town, though binding upon the parties as to the support in question, affect the settlement of the paupers. New-Haven, July, 1842. Where the town of B., to which a portion of the town of O. had been annexed, agreed with O., to take upon itself, for support, £,, a pauper of G., haring a settlement on the territory transferred, so long as he should live and need help, binding him upon the town of B.t for every liability to winch towns are subject on account of paupers; and /.- afterwards married M., who needed support; it was held, that though such agreement did not change the settlement of yet as Vs settlement was in by virtue of the annexation, and the agreement was not inconsistent therewith, B. had no claim upon O. for the support of M. This was an action of assumpsit, brought originally, by the town of Bethany, against the town of Oxford, for the support of Marietta Lines, a pauper. The cause was tried in the county court of New-Haven county, November term, 1840. The General Assembly, at its session in May 1839, passed an act or resolution, annexing part of the territory of the town of Oxford to the town of Bethany. In relation to the support of paupers, it was thereby provided as follows : “ And said Bethany shall assume to support, and shall take and support, such part of the actual paupers of said town of Oxford, of date May 23d, 1839, as the grand list of said territory so set off-, proportioned to the whole grand list of said Oxford of 1838, bears to the whole grand list of said Oxford. And in all other respects, the said territory and the inhabitants thereof, shall constitute a part of said Bethany, with all its privileges and liabilities. And in case any person or persons shall hereafter become poor, and would belong to said town of Oxford to support, by virtue of birth, residence or in any other manner, within said territory, such person or persons shall be maintained, by said town of Bethany, to which they shall, by this act, belong, whether present within the limits thereof, or not.” Resolves of 1839, p. 75, 6. At the time this act was passed, Marietta Lines, then Marietta Johnson, the person for whose support this action was brought, was, and until her inter-marriage with Zebulon Lines, continued to be, a pauper and an inhabitant of the town of Oxford. Zebulon Lines, at this time, was, and for some years previous thereto had been, an inhabitant of the town of Oxford, residing as a pauper in the poor-house in that part of the *own 01^ Oxford which was not set off to the town of Bethany. There he continued to reside and to be supported as a pauper, by the town of Oxford, until after the making of the agreement about to be stated between the select-men of the towns of Bethany and Oxford respectively. It was admitted, that the plaintiffs had furnished necessary support to said Marietta, previous to the bringing of this suit; and that they were entitled to recover therefor, unless her settlement had been changed, by her marriage to Zebulon Lines, which was prior to the time of furnishing such support. The defendants claimed, that the plaintiffs were liable to support her, prior to and at the time, when the support in question was furnished, inasmuch as she had become an inhabitant of the town of Bethany. To establish this claim, the defendants offered in evidence said act or resolution of the General Assembly, and in connexion therewith a vote of the town of Bethany, passed at a meeting of the inhabitants of that town, legally warned and held on the 7th of October 1839, authorising their select-men to negotiate with the selectmen of Oxford, or such other person or persons as that town might appoint, and to make a full and final settlement of all matters pending between said towns, relating to a division of town paupers; and the following agreement between the select-men of said towns: “We the subscribers, select-men of the town of Bethany, having been duly appointed, au-thorised and directed, by said town, to make a distribution of the town paupers of the town of Oxford, in pursuance of a resolution passed by the legislature of the state of Connecticut, holden at Hartford, on the first Wednesday of May, 1839, did, on the 19th of October 1839, meet at the inn of Stephen Street in Oxford, and then and there, with said Oxford select-men, did agree to take upon the town of Bethany, for support and maintenance, so long as he shall live and want help, Zebulon Lines, and no other person, he being a pauper of said town of Oxford ; and said Zebulon Lines, we hereby bind upon said town of Bethany, for every liability, for which towns áre liable, >on account of paupers; and we guaranty, on behalf of said Bethany, to save said Oxford forever harmless, on account of said Lines: and we further agree to pay said town of Oxford, out of the treasury of the town of Bethany, the sum of 50 dollars; and this we bind ourselves to do and perform, as the full and just proportion of the liability of Bethany, to take of the paupers of Oxford. Dated Oxford, October 19th, 1839.” [Signed by Theophilus Smith and others, select-men of Bethany.] “ We, the undersigned, select-men of the town of Oxford, having received of the select-men of the town of Bethany, their guaranty for the support of Zebulon Lines, a pauper of the town of Oxford, and to save the town of Oxford forever harmless, on account of said Lines; and also a promissory note for the sum of 50 dollars from said Bethany to said Oxford; do hereby forever discharge said town of Bethany from all liability on the score of dividing town paupers with the town of Oxford, pursuant to the terms embraced in a resolution of the General Assembly, holden on the first Wednesday of May 1839, transferring a portion of the town of Oxford to the town of Bethany, except the payment of said note. Oxford, October 19th, 1839.” [Signed by Nathan I. Wilcoxson and others, select-men of Oxford.'] In connexion with these documents, tiie defendants also offered proof of the marriage of said Marietta to said Zeb-ulon Lines, on the 17th of December, 1839. The defendants further offered evidence to prove, that Zebulon Lines originally acquired his settlement in the town of Oxford, by a residence of more than six years, on that portion of the town, which was, by the General Assembly, annexed to the town of Bethany; and that although he had, as a pauper, been removed to and was residing in, another part of the town of Oxford, where he was supported as a pauper, in the poorhouse, prior to and at the time of passing said resolution, yet he had not resided in such other part of the town, for a period long enough to have originally acquired a settlement therein. The defendants thereupon insisted, that the evidence so offered, was admissible to prove, that Zebulon Lines was, within the meaning of said resolution, an inhabitant of that part of the territory of Oxford, which was transferred to Bethany; and that he was, by force of said resolution, transferred therewith, and became thereby a settled inhabitant of the town of Bethany; and by his subsequent marriage with said Marietta, she became an inhabitant of that town. To the admission of all this evidence, the plaintiffs object-ed ; and the court rejected it. The jury thereupon returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, on which judgment was rendered in their favour. The defendants, having filed a bill of exceptions, brought a writ of error, in the superior court; which was reserved for the advice of this court. R. I. Ingersoll and Blackman, for the plaintiffs in error, contended, 1. That from the facts admitted and offered to be proved by the defendants, Zcbulon Lines, the husband of the pauper for whose support this action is brought, was an inhabitant of the territory which was annexed to the town of Bethany. He had resided there six. years, supporting himself ; which made him an inhabitant, as much as if he had been born there. 2. That the inhabitant of a territory, made into a new town, or annexed to another town, remains an inhabitant of the same territory in its new relation. Great-Barrington v. Lancaster, 14 Mass. Rep. 253. 25(5. fernon v. East-Hartford, 3 Conn. Rep. 475. Simsbury v. Hartford, 14 Conn. Rep. 192. The resolution also declares explicitly, that “the said territory, and the inhabitants thereof, shall constitute a part of said Bethany, with all its privileges and liabilities.” 3. That the residence of Lines in the poor-house, which was not on the territory annexed to Bethany, for the purpose of receiving support as a pauper, did not prevent his being transferred with the territory. His domicil was still on the territory. Mansfield v. Granby, 1 Root, 179. Vernon v. East-Hartford, 3 Conn. Rep. 475. His temporary absence from the territory at the poor-house, to be supported, could not affect this question, any more than if, at the time of the annexation, he had broken his leg without the limits, and had remained there to have it set and taken care of, or had been in the State Hospital at New-Haven, or in the Retreat for the Insane at Hartford, or in the county prison for debt. 4. That by the arrangement made between the towns, under the resolution, Bethany not only assumed the support of Zebulon Lines, but “ every liability for which towns are liable for and on account of paupers.” Now, if a town is liable for the support of the husband, is it not, of course, liable for the support of his wile, if she conies to want? That from the provision made and the rule given, by the legislature, for apportioning the burdens between the two-towns, it is manifest that the intention was, to put upon each the same kind of burden. But upon the construction now contended for by Bethany, an Oxford pauper marrying a Bethany woman transfers her settlement and their joint progeny to Oxford; whereas a Bethany pauper marrying an Oxford woman, leaves her a pauper of Oxford still. A construction so palpably inequitable, will not be sanctioned by this court. Baldwin, for the defendants in error, remarked, that the resolution of 1839 contemplated three classes of persons: First, residents on the territory. Their settlement was changed. Secondly, paupers actually supported by Oxford. These were to be subjects of an equitable arrangement for their future support, on the principle of a rateable division of existing burdens. Such a division might obligate Bethany to support one member of a family of paupers, without in any way affecting the legal settlement of the person so supported. Thirdly, future paupers, who were to fall upon that town to which the territory on which their settlement was acquired, belonged. He then contended, 1. That Lines, being an actual pauper resident in and supported by the old town of Oxford, his settlement was not changed by the resolution. 2. That he was regarded, by both towns, in their arrangement, as a pauper of Oxford. 3. That if the settlement of Lines was not changed, by the resolution, the agreement did not change it. It only charged Bethany with his support. Brewster v. Harwich, 4 Mass. Rep. 278. Westborough v. Franklin, 15 Mass. Rep. 254. West-Boylston v. Boylslon, 15 Mass. Rep. 261. Shrewsbury v. Boylston, 1 Pick. 105. Fitchburgh v. Westminster i Pick. 144. The legislature did not delegate to the two towns the power of changing the legal settlement of any person. 4. That if the legal settlement of Lines was not changed, though Bethany may have become chargeable with the expense of supporting him, the settlement of his wife remains in Oxford, and that town must take care of her. [MAJORITY — Waiiju, J.] Waiiju, J. If Zebulon Lines, at the time of the annexation -of a part of the town of Oxford to Bethany, had his. settlement in that part, his settlement would continue in it; and consequently, he would be transferred with it to Bethany Simsbury v. Hartford, 14 Conn. Rep. 192. Vernon v. East-Hartford, 3 Conn. Rep. 475. The effect, so far as his settlement is concerned, will be precisely the same, whether he was then actually residing on the territory annexed to Bethany, or in some other place. Simsbury v. Hartford. Mansfield, v. Granby, 1 Root, 179. His residence, therefore, in the poor-house of Oxford, had no effect whatever upon his settlement, and did not prevent his acquiring a settlement in Bethany, in the same manner as any other person living upon the territory annexed to that town. Marietta Lines, the pauper, upon her marriage with Zebu-Ion Lines, acquired his settlement; and consequently, became settled with him in the town of Bethany. Danbury v. New Haven, 5 Conn. Rep. 584. Hebron v. Colchester, 5 Day, 169. These are principles familiar and well settled in this state. According to the facts, as claimed by the town of Oxford, it is very clear, that the pauper, when the supplies were furnished, belonged to Bethany; and that town was liable for her support, unless there be something in the act of the General Assembly, which prevents the operation of the rules of the common law, as recognized in this state. The principal clause relied upon, as favouring such a construction, is that which provides, that Bethany shall support such part of the actual paupers of the town of Oxford as the list of the territory set off to Bethany, bears to the whole list of Oxford. The object of that provision evidently was, to divide the expense of supporting those who were then paupers according to the lists of the two parts of Oxford,— but not to destroy or change their settlement. The legislature, we think, could not have intended to authorise the parties to make a change in the settlement of any person, at their pleasure. To justify such a construction, the language ought to be more plain and explicit. The parties might agree, that one portion of the paupers should be supported by one town) and the remainder by the other town. This arrangement would affect the liability of the parties, — but not the settlement of the paupers. Suppose a family, at the time of the division of Oxford, were residing in a part remote from Bethany, and, by reason of sickness, requiring aid from the town; — ’Would that circumstance destroy the settlement of the family, and justify a removal to Bethany, after they had recovered from their sickness, and ceased to require aid ? Again, suppose they were actually residing in the territory annexed to Bethany;— would the circumstance of their needing assistance, when it was so annexed, justify a removal to another place 1 Such, we think, could not have been the design of the legislature. But even if the parties possessed the power of changing the settlement of paupers, it has not been done, in this case. Lines, the husband of the pauper, by an agreement of the parties, was taken by Bethany, and was to be supported by that town in which he had his settlement. This construction of the act appears to be in conformity with the provisions in the last clause. It is there declared, that persons having in any manner acquired a settlement in the territory annexed to Bethany, and thereafter becoming poor, should be supported by that town, whether then residing in that territory or elsewhere. The legislature could not have intended to make a distinction between the settlement of such persons as were then poor, and such as might thereafter become such: nor that all those who were then poor, should have their settlement in Oxford, even if their settlement was in the part annexed to Bethany. In our opinion, the provisions of the act are in conformity with those of our common law relating to the settlement of inhabitants upon the division of towns. The testimony, therefore, offered by the defendants in the court below, was improperly rejected by the court; and consequently, there is error in the proceedings of the county court. In this opinion the other Judges concurred, excepting Church, J., who was not present when the case was argued. Judgment reversed.