Case Name: TOWN OF ERDAHL v. TOWN OF SANFORD
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1914-11-06
Citations: 127 Minn. 527
Docket Number: Nos. 18,821-(84)
Parties: TOWN OF ERDAHL v. TOWN OF SANFORD.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 527–527

Head Matter:
TOWN OF ERDAHL v. TOWN OF SANFORD.
November 6, 1914.
Nos. 18,821—(84).
Pauper — error to dismiss action.
Action to recover moneys expended for the support of a pauper. Whether the pauper had a settlement in defendant town was a question for the jury, and the court erred in dismissing the action. [Reporter.]
From a judgment in justice court in favor of defendant, plaintiff appealed to the district court for Grant county. The appeal was heard before Flaherty, J., who when plaintiff, rested granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
Reversed.
B. J. Scofield, for appellant.
B. J. Stromme, for respondent.
Reported in 149 N. W. 1070.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In this action, brought to recover moneys expended for the support of a pauper, the issue was whether the pauper had obtained a residence or settlement, under section 3071, G. S. 1913, in the defendant town so as to make that town liable. An examination of the testimony introduced by plaintiff leads to the conclusion that the question of the pauper's residence or settlement in the defendant town was for the jury, and the court erred when dismissing the case. This being the result it is deemed best not to set out or discuss the testimony. It would not benefit the profession nor aid the parties in another trial.
Order reversed.