In Re Wilson

58 N.W.2d 470
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedMay 5, 1953
Docket7365
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 N.W.2d 470 (In Re Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Wilson, 58 N.W.2d 470 (N.D. 1953).

Opinion

58 N.W.2d 470 (1953)

In re WILSON.
TOWNER COUNTY
v.
STUTSMAN COUNTY et al.

No. 7365.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

May 5, 1953.

C. E. Joseph, Cando, for appellant.

Paul Agneberg, Cando, for respondent Towner County.

Ray R. Friederich, Rugby, for Pierce County.

Douglas B. Heen, Devils Lake, for Ramsey County.

*471 GRIMSON, Judge.

This is an action brought by Towner County, a political subdivision of the State of North Dakota, to determine the place of residence of one Elizabeth Wilson for poor relief purposes. Elizabeth Wilson is made defendant. The counties of Stutsman, Ramsey and Pierce were also made defendants. Rolette County and the Public Welfare Board of North Dakota were interpleaded. The district court, after several hearings in the matter, found that said Elizabeth Wilson was not a resident of the State of North Dakota for poor relief purposes. The trial court also held that her residence for such purposes still remained in Minnesota. The defendant, Elizabeth Wilson, appeals.

The evidence shows that Elizabeth Wilson is a single woman, 40 years of age. She came from Cleveland, Ohio, in 1941, to Minneapolis, Minn., to attend the North Central Bible Institute. She completed her course there in three years. After that she went out as an evangelist and children's worker. She carried on that work in various places in Minnesota until Oct. 21, 1946. Then she came into North Dakota and carried on the same kind of work for the Central District Council of the Assemblies of God, conducting or participating in church services and Daily Vacation Bible Schools and as supply pastor.

Sec. 50-0204, NDRC 1943, provides:

"If no type of public assistance or poor relief, whether county, state, or federal, has been received, residence in a county, for poor relief purposes, shall be gained as follows:
"1. Each male person, and each unmarried female, over the age of twenty-one years, who has resided one year continuously in any county in this state, shall be deemed to have residence in such county;
"2. Each person who has resided one year continuously in the state, but not in any one county, shall have a residence in the county in which he or she has longest resided within such year;
"3. Every minor * * *."

A fourth subsection not material in this case was added to the section by Chapter 284, S.L.1951.

Under this section this court has repeatedly held that before a male or an unmarried female over the age of 21 years can acquire a residence in the state for poor relief purposes he or she must have a continuous, actual residence in the state for one year. Nelson County v. Williams County, 68 N.D. 56, 276 N.W. 265; Griggs County v. Cass County, 65 N.D. 608, 260 N. W. 417; County of Grand Forks v. Du Fault, 66 N.D. 518, 267 N.W. 136; In re Boise, 73 N.D. 16, 11 N.W.2d 80.

"Logically, the first inquiry is whether an applicant for poor relief is a resident of the state and has resided therein continuously for at least a year. A person who is not such resident, or a person who has ceased to be a resident of the state at all, is not a resident for poor relief purposes. Under sec. 2501, C.L.1913 [Sec. 50-0204, NDRC 1943], a person, in order to have a `legal residence' in the state for poor relief purposes, must have resided therein continuously for at least one year." City of Enderlin v. Pontiac Tp., 62 N.D. 105, 118 and 119, 242 N.W. 117, 123.

The term residence is used in our law in two quite different meanings. In Sec. 54-0126, NDRC 1943, pertaining to residence generally, it is defined as: "* * * the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he returns in seasons of repose". This definition has been held as synonomous with domicile and means living in a place with the intent of making it a fixed and permanent home. Concurrence of actual residence and intent to remain there are necessary for the acquisition of a domicile. Residence as used in the poor relief statutes means dwelling in a particular place irrespective of any intent of making it a home. A domicile is attained as soon as a home is established without any certain length of time passing. A residence for *472 poor relief purposes is attained only on actual living in a place the length of time required by the statute.

"While `domicile' and `residence' are frequently used synonomously (see 9 R.C.L. p. 540; 19 C.J. 395), yet there is a clear distinction in law between them, and they are not, when used accurately, convertible terms". McEwen v. McEwen, 50 N.D. 662, 197 N.W. 862, 866. See also Anderson v. Breithbarth, 62 N.D. 709, 715, 245 N.W. 483.

"The term `legal residence' employed by the Legislature in the poor relief laws has a meaning quite different from that which the same term has in other laws of the state. Thus, a person is not required to reside for any specified length of time in order to acquire a residence in the state within the purview of the general laws." Burke County v. Brusven, 62 N.D. 1, 241 N.W. 82, 84.

"The term `residence' and `legal residence' employed by the Legislature in the laws relating to poor relief have reference to the status acquired by a person within a certain county or political subdivision so as to entitle such person to poor relief within such county or political subdivision. * * * In our opinion, the word `resided' in subdivision 4 of section 2501, C.L.1913 [Subdivisions 1 and 2, Sec. 50-0204, NDRC 1943], has reference to the actual residence as distinguished from the legal or technical residence of an individual, that is, it means the place where a person actually lives and stays." City of Enderlin v. Pontiac Tp., 62 N.D. 105, 115, 117, 242 N.W. 117, 121.

"The word `reside' has two quite distinct meanings. The one legal and technical; the other personal, actual or physical habitation of a person. Where a person lives with his family at an established home, the place where he `resides' is clear. That is his technical legal residence. Such residence embraces two elements: First, residence; second, the intention to remain there permanently for an unlimited time. To `reside' in such manner gives a domicile, * * *. That is also the place of his actual or physical habitation. A person who has no such fixed place or domicile wherein he `resides,' but dwells in hotels, boarding houses, or the homes of others as suitable to his employment or convenience also `resides' where he actually or personally lives. Indeed, he may with his family occupy a rented house and be within such meaning of the word. He simply lives at the particular place. He has not established a domicile. Such residence under our poor laws is temporary, and continues so, regardless of intention until it has ripened into such domicile. One may have a residence before he acquires a domicile." Town of Smiley v. Village of St. Hilaire, 183 Minn. 533, 237 N.W. 416, 417.

The evidence in the instant case shows that Miss Wilson lived and worked in North Dakota at the following places during the time here specified:

Place                   Date Arrived        Date left.          No. of Days.
Minneapolis, Minn.      Nov. 17, 1941,      Oct. 21, 1946,      4 yrs. 11 mo. 4 days
Williston & Crosby,     Oct. 21, 1946,      Nov. 3, 1946,       12 days.
 North Dakota.
Columbus, N. D.         Nov. 4, 1946,       Nov. 

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

Related

Brown v. United States
5 Cl. Ct. 1 (Court of Claims, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 N.W.2d 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wilson-nd-1953.