IN RE SETTLEMENT OF MIKE CEGON AND OTHERS. TOWN OF RIPLEY v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

Minnesota Supreme Court1942-02-13No. No. 33,112

212 Minn. 75

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the removal order, holding that because the record did not establish whether the Cegon family objected to removal, no legal question concerning removal from their freehold was properly presented for decision; only the paupers themselves, not the town or city, may raise such a challenge.

The Town of Ripley sought to remove the Cegon family, whom it classified as paupers, to Minneapolis, where the family had established legal settlement in 1929. Although the Cegons later moved to Ripley and purchased a small freehold there, when the father applied for relief in December 1940, the town denied the application. The trial court found the family qualified as paupers with legal settlement in Minneapolis and ordered their removal there within 30 days, unless Minneapolis agreed to support them in Ripley.

Minneapolis challenged the removal order on two grounds: first, that paupers cannot be removed from their freehold, and second, that removal was improper because the family never actually received relief from Ripley. The appellate court addressed the freehold argument but found the record inadequate to resolve it. Critically, the Cegon family themselves were not parties to the litigation, and there was no evidence in the record indicating whether they objected to removal. The court reasoned that only the paupers themselves could raise a constitutional or legal challenge to removal based on freehold ownership, and a simple question posed to the father during trial would have sufficed to establish his position.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a pauper with legal settlement elsewhere can be removed from a freehold
Who has standing to challenge removal of a pauper from a freehold
Whether failure to receive relief from a municipality precludes removal to the settlement jurisdiction

Procedural posture

The Town of Ripley brought an action in district court to determine the legal settlement of the Cegon family and obtain their removal; the trial court ordered removal to Minneapolis, and Minneapolis appealed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Loring, Justice.

The town of Ripley brought this action to determine the poor relief settlement of the Cegon family, then living on a freehold in that town, and to remove them to Minneapolis. The court found that they were paupers, that Minneapolis was their legal settlement, and ordered their removal. The decision was based on Mason St. 1940 Supp. §§ 3161-1 and 3161-2, which authorizes the district court to decide disputes between political units of the state as to the place of settlement of poor persons and to order their removal to the place of such settlement, or that they be supported where they may be at the expense of the unit where the settlement is fixed.

The parties stipulated to the facts found by the trial judge. The pertinent facts so found are that the Cegons are a family of four; that they settled in Minneapolis in 1929, obtained legal settlement there and never lost it; that in July 1939 they moved to the town of Ripley, bought two acres for $100, built a small dwelling, and there resided; that the father applied for relief from the town of Ripley on December 17, 1940, but his application was denied, and this action followed. The court concluded that the Cegons were paupers, legally settled in Minneapolis, and ordered them sent there 30 days after the entry of judgment unless in the meantime Minneapolis would support them where they are.

Minneapolis contends that (1) a pauper cannot be removed from his freehold and (2) that, as the family never received relief from Ripley, the court was not justified in ordering removal. The second contention merits no discussion.

Counsel for Minneapolis frankly and commendably admit that the Cegon settlement for poor relief purposes is in Minneapolis, and they say that Minneapolis prefers to support them where they are because it can be done more economically.

The difficulty with the contention that the paupers cannot be removed from their freehold is that the record is sthent as to whether they are willing to be removed. As we regard the situation, they are the only parties who can raise the question. They are not parties to this action, and when the father was on the witness stand he was not asked whether he objected to removal. He may be perfectly willing to go, in which case no question, constitutional or otherwise, would or could be presented to the courts as to the power of removal. When such a situation as this is presented to the district court, it would be well for the court to inquire of the pauper if he objects to removal. If he does, appropriate measures should be taken to present the issue. The record in the case does not present it. The Vermont cases (Town of Londonderry v. Town of Acton, 3 Vt. 122; Town of Dummerston v. Town of Newfane, 37 Vt. 9; Town of Peacham v. Town of Waterford, 16 Vt. 151) are cited to support the view that the municipality may raise the question; but we are of the opinion that no matter how sacred the right to remain on the freehold may be, the question must be raised by the pauper affected. Under our practice that would be a simple matter. One question to the pauper would reveal his attitude.

In the case at bar the court’s order of removal is conditioned on the failure of Minneapolis to support the paupers where they are. From counsel’s statement in court, that is what the city wants to do. Upon the admissions of counsel, there is no question presented to us on this record.

Order affirmed.