Minnesota Supreme Court, 1907

Robbins v. Town of Homer

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided March 15, 1907

100 Minn. 547; 110 N.W. 1134; 1907 Minn. LEXIS 729 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

‘William Burns and Bitzpatriclc <f- Bucle, for appellant., George T. Simpson, Bari Simpson, and Webber & Bees, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1943, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Larson (Minn. 1943)
County of Marshall v. County of Redwood (Minn. 1943)
Tryon v. Dornfeld (Minn. 1915)
Warren Hospital Assn. v. Town of Middle River (Minn. 1931)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This .ease was in this court once before on an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The order of the trial court was then reversed, and the case sent back for trial. Robbins v. Town of Homer, 95 Minn. 201, 103 N. W. 1023.

The facts of the case and the principles of law which determine the rights, of the parties are there fully considered. When the ease came on for trial,, the court adopted the unusual course of taking a special verdict only, and upon the facts thus found by the jury a judgment was ordered in favor of the defendant. We find no reason for reconsidering the questions of law, which' were fully discussed and settled by the former decision. The evidence did! not sustain the allegation of the complaint that Lessard had for more tham one year prior to the date in question been wholly and entirely a public charge* and dependent upon the town for his means of livelihood. It did appear,, however, as alleged, and in substance found by the jury, that he was a pauper-on the date of the injury and then in actual need of immediate assistance- and relief from the town. The right to assistance upon such an emergeney *548floes not depend upon the previous recognition by the authorities of the fact that he was a pauper. It is determined by. the facts themselves.

The judgment is reversed, with directions to enter judgment on the special verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.