In Re Settlement of Venteicher

278 N.W. 581, 202 Minn. 331
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMarch 18, 1938
DocketNo. 31,560.
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 278 N.W. 581 (In Re Settlement of Venteicher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Settlement of Venteicher, 278 N.W. 581, 202 Minn. 331 (Mich. 1938).

Opinion

1 Reported in 278 N.W. 581. The township of Leigh in Morrison county appeals from a judgment determining the settlement of one John Venteicher and his family, poor persons, to be in said township and adjudging it to be charged with the responsibility of furnishing them aid as poor persons.

John Venteicher, together with his wife and children, came to this state from Iowa in 1926 and located on a farm in Pierz township, Morrison county, where they remained until October, 1931, when they moved to Buckman township, Morrison county. Upon leaving this latter abode on October 14, 1934, they moved to Granite township, Morrison county, and made their home there until May 20, 1935. On that date they went to live on a farm in Richardson township, Morrison county, where they stayed until October 15, 1935. They then moved to a farm in Leigh township, Morrison county. On October 24, 1936, they left this last residence and thereafter made their home in Mille Lacs county.

In Morrison county poor relief is administered by the townships, while in Mille Lacs it is dispensed by the county. The towns of Pierz and Buckman are not parties to this proceeding, and the record *Page 333 does not disclose whether the Venteichers applied for or were given relief while residing there. They received no aid from township funds while in Granite, Richardson, and Leigh townships. From November 8, 1935, until October 24, 1936, Mr. Venteicher was either employed by the Works Progress Administration or his family was the recipient of direct relief administered by Morrison county with federal funds. About December 1, 1936, the Venteichers applied for relief in Mille Lacs county, and they received commodities and credits from the county relief agency from December, 1936, through March, 1937, when these proceedings to determine settlement were commenced by Mille Lacs county against Granite, Richardson, and Leigh townships.

The trial court found that during the year preceding December 1, 1936, the Venteichers had not acquired a settlement in Mille Lacs county; that the period from January 24, 1936, to October 24, 1936, was to be excluded in determining their settlement; that during the remaining 54 days between December 1, 1935, and January 24, 1936, the Venteichers had resided in Leigh township; that Leigh township was the municipality in Morrison county in which the Venteichers longest resided during the year immediately preceding their application for relief in Mille Lacs county; that the Venteichers are poor persons within the meaning of the statute; and that the town of Leigh is chargeable with all expenses incurred in rendering them assistance as the place of their settlement for poor relief purposes.

In a memorandum attached to the findings and conclusions the court expressed the view, adopted by it, that the year in which settlement of the pauper in question must be determined was the year preceding December 1, 1936. That part of the memorandum applicable reads:

"I am convinced that in determining the settlement of the paupers involved in this proceeding the Court is concerned with the year next before December 1st, 1936, the time said paupers made application to the County of Mille Lacs for support as poor persons. That prior to moving into the County of Mille Lacs and State of Minnesota *Page 334 said paupers had lived and resided continuously in the County of Morrison and State of Minnesota for more than one year and had established a settlement therein. That the municipality in the County of Morrison and State of Minnesota in which the said paupers lived and resided the longest time during the year next before December 1st, 1936, will have to respond in aid and support for said paupers. * * * In determining the settlement the Court is not supposed to go back of the year next before December 1st, 1936. It is true that since January 24, 1936, said paupers were either on work relief or were furnished other direct relief by governmental agencies and that that time since January 24, 1936, is to be excluded in determining their settlement, but the evidence conclusively shows that said paupers lived in the Town of Leigh from about December 1st, 1935, to about January 24, 1936, a period of fifty-four days, and that during this time there was no aid furnished said paupers from the poor fund of any municipality. This period is within the year next before application for relief and is the longest residence of said paupers in any municipality during that year."

There is no dispute as to the facts. All parties agree that the Venteichers had not established a settlement in Mille Lacs county at the time they first applied for relief in that county nor at the time of the hearing. The responsibility for their care and support must rest upon either Leigh, Richardson, or Granite township. The solution of that question depends upon the construction of that part of 3 Mason Minn. St. 1936 Supp, § 3161, which reads as follows:

"Every person, except those hereinafter mentioned, who has resided one year continuously in any county, shall be deemed to have a settlement therein, if it has the county system; if it has the town system, he shall have a settlement in the town, city or village therein in which he has longest resided within such year. Every person who has resided one year continuously in the state, but not in any one county, shall have a settlement in the county in which he has longest resided within such year, if it has the county system; if it has the town system, his settlement shall be in the town, city or *Page 335 village therein in which he has longest resided within such year. * * * each month during which he has received relief from the poor fund of any county or municipality or from fundssupplied by the State of Minnesota or the United States or anydepartment or departments thereof, supplied as direct relief orin providing work on a relief basis and in lieu of directrelief shall be excluded in determining the time of residence." The italicized portion was added by Ex. Sess. L. 1935-1936, c. 68.

1. Prior to January 24, 1936, the only periods of residence excluded by the statute in determining settlement were the months in which aid was received from the county or town poor relief fund. Town of Hagen v. Town of Felton, 197 Minn. 567,267 N.W. 484. On January 24, 1936, the statute was amended so as to exclude also months in which direct or work relief was received from the state or federal governments. Neither the substance nor the construction of the statute was otherwise changed. Township of Equality v. Township of Star, 200 Minn. 316,274 N.W. 219. Since the amending act did not specifically provide when it was to take effect, it went into effect from and after its approval on January 24, 1936. 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 10928; Mushel v. Bd. of Co. Commrs. of Benton County,152 Minn. 266, 188 N.W. 555. Nor did it provide that it was to be retroactive, and we regard it as having been passed without that intent. 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. Supps. 1932, 1934, 1937) § 8946.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Litchfield v. TOWNSHIP OF PAYNESVILLE
103 N.W.2d 402 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1960)
County of Ramsey v. Township of Lake Henry
47 N.W.2d 554 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1951)
In Re Settlement of Peniondtz
16 N.W.2d 902 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
City of Minneapolis v. County of St. Louis
16 N.W.2d 902 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
City of Minneapolis v. Township of Independence
13 N.W.2d 375 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
In Re Settlement of Stewart
13 N.W.2d 375 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
Lucht v. Bell
8 N.W.2d 26 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1943)
Village of Long Prairie v. Township of Burleene
3 N.W.2d 490 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1942)
In Re Settlement of Gadbaw
3 N.W.2d 490 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1942)
In Re Settlement of Cramer
2 N.W.2d 816 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1942)
County of Marshall v. County of Anoka
2 N.W.2d 816 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1942)
In Re Settlement of Wrobleski
283 N.W. 399 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1939)
Town of Swan River v. County of Chippewa
283 N.W. 399 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 N.W. 581, 202 Minn. 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-settlement-of-venteicher-minn-1938.