Township of Girard v. Village of Vining

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Township of Girard v. Village of Vining

281 N.W. 758, 203 Minn. 425, 1938 Minn. LEXIS 733

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 14, 1938

DocketNo. 31,779

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 N.W. 758 (Township of Girard v. Village of Vining) 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

Township of Girard v. Village of Vining, 281 N.W. 758, 203 Minn. 425, 1938 Minn. LEXIS 733 (Mich. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The village of Vining appeals from a judgment determining that one Bendickson, his wife, and six children had a legal settlement there for poor relief purposes. As a matter of convenience we shall hereafter refer to the contending parties as Girard and Vining. Both are municipal entities Avithin Otter Tail county, the former a township, the latter a village. Poor relief is provided under the township system.

Bendickson and family moved into Vining on October 15, 1933, and remained there until April 20 or 23, 1936, Avhen they moved to Girard. While they Avere living at Vining they at times received aid as poor persons. They continued to live at Girard until February 19, 1937, Avhen these proceedings were first commenced before a justice of the peace to have their settlement for poor relief purposes determined as betAveen Girard and Vining. The justice determined the matter against the claims of Vining. Upon appeal and trial had before the district court the same conclusion was reached. The facts Avere there found substantially as stated, and, in addition, that during each and every month from April, 1936, up to and including January, 1937, with the exception of the month of June, 1936, Bendickson and family received poor relief from public funds either in the form of direct relief or Avork relief, direct relief having been furnished and provided by Vining. The only basis for reversal here urged is that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings. We have carefully revieAved the record and have reached the same conclusions as Avere reached below. 1 Mason Minn. St. [427]*4271927, § 3161, as amended by Ex. Sess. L. 1935-1936, c. 68 (3 Mason Minn. St. 1936 Supp. § 3161) ; In re Settlement of Venteicher [County of Mille Lacs v. Town of Leigh] 202 Minn. 331, 278 N. W. 581, and cases there cited, furnish the guide for decision.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The village of Vining appeals from a judgment determining that one Bendickson, his wife, and six children had a legal settlement there for poor relief purposes. As a matter of convenience we shall hereafter refer to the contending parties as Girard and Vining. Both are municipal entities Avithin Otter Tail county, the former a township, the latter a village. Poor relief is provided under the township system.

Bendickson and family moved into Vining on October 15, 1933, and remained there until April 20 or 23, 1936, Avhen they moved to Girard. While they Avere living at Vining they at times received aid as poor persons. They continued to live at Girard until February 19, 1937, Avhen these proceedings were first commenced before a justice of the peace to have their settlement for poor relief purposes determined as betAveen Girard and Vining. The justice determined the matter against the claims of Vining. Upon appeal and trial had before the district court the same conclusion was reached. The facts Avere there found substantially as stated, and, in addition, that during each and every month from April, 1936, up to and including January, 1937, with the exception of the month of June, 1936, Bendickson and family received poor relief from public funds either in the form of direct relief or Avork relief, direct relief having been furnished and provided by Vining. The only basis for reversal here urged is that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings. We have carefully revieAved the record and have reached the same conclusions as Avere reached below. 1 Mason Minn. St. [427]*4271927, § 3161, as amended by Ex. Sess. L. 1935-1936, c. 68 (3 Mason Minn. St. 1936 Supp. § 3161) ; In re Settlement of Venteicher [County of Mille Lacs v. Town of Leigh] 202 Minn. 331, 278 N. W. 581, and cases there cited, furnish the guide for decision.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 N.W. 758, 203 Minn. 425, 1938 Minn. LEXIS 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/township-of-girard-v-village-of-vining-minn-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack