lington and of his subsequent stay there was, the defendant claiming that thereby he became and was a resident of that town, and was not a transient therein at the time that town assumed his support, and for that reason, if for no other, recovery could not be had; and the case was submitted to the jury accordingly.

No general verdict was returned, and three questions only were submitted to the jury, which, with the answers thereto, are as follows:

1. "Did the town of Worcester contract with Milo Durfee to pay him five dollars per week for supporting Daniel until the suit then pending between Worcester and East Montpelier was terminated, as the plaintiff's evidence tends to show? Answer. Yes."

2. "Did Daniel Durfee move from the town of Worcester to South Burlington in December, 1888, with the intent of residing at South Burlington as his home? Answer. No."

3. Did Daniel Durfee at any time subsequent to June, 1889, and before December, 1890, intend to make South Burlington his home? Answer. No."

The court found all the things to be true that the plaintiff's evidence tended to prove concerning matters on which the defendant did not desire to go to the jury, and on such findings of the court and the special verdicts rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, to which the defendant excepted, and insisted that the judgment ought to be in its favor.

I. The plaintiff contends that the judgment of the county court in its favor can be sustained under the holding of this court in Leicester v. Brandon, 65 Vt. 544. Whatever may

be said of the soundness of that decision, which was rendered by a divided court, it is clear that the case at bar does not come within the reasoning adopted by the court in that case. There, as reported, Brandon while supporting the pauper in Brandon, made arrangements with a person then residing in Leicester, by which the pauper was to be kept by him in the latter town, both parties reserving the right to have her re

moved from Leicester at any time. While the pauper was being kept in Leicester under this arrangement she became chargeable to that town, and it was held that "in legal contemplation her actual residence was in Brandon, while she was transient in Leicester." In the case at bar the pauper was never kept in the plaintiff town with the consent nor by the procurement of the defendant. The special contract with Milo Durfee for the pauper's support terminated by its own limitation in June, 1889. As between the defendant and Milo Durfee, the defendant was not bound to follow the pauper to South Burlington and re-take him at the expiration of the contract. If Milo Durfee desired to charge the defendant with the pauper's further support, he should have returned him to it at the expiration of the contract. Under the facts stated, there was no implied contract on the part of the defendant to pay Milo Durfee for the support of the pauper. Baldwin, Admr. of Milo Durfee v. Worcester, 67 Vt. Newton v. Waterford, 67 Vt. At the expiration of the special contract the pauper was of full age, and from June, 1889, to November, 1890, he, with the aid of his father, supported himself in South Burlington. Thus in law the pauper supported himself during this time. Craftsbury v. Greensboro, 66 Vt. 585. When he came to

want in South Burling

ton he was not then being supported by the defendant, and hence the case does not fall within Leicester v. Brandon.

II. Daniel Durfee's home was always with his father. The father's home, wherever it was, was his home. He never had any other place he could call his home. When he moved from Worcester to South Burlington he left there no place nor home to which he had a right to return, nor did he leave any personal effects in Worcester. From June, 1889, to November, 1890, he resided with his father at that father's home in South Burlington, supporting himself within the mearing of the law. He was unmarried, and had no family of his own. It is true that usually intention is an important

element in determining the question of residence, but in this case the court below erred in its instructions to the jury, in making that question turn solely upon whether Daniel moved to South Burlington in December, 1888, with the intent of residing there, and whether subsequent to June, 1889, and before December, 1890, he intended to make South Burlington his home. It also erred in its instructions in respect to the pauper being transient as to Worcester subsequent to June, 1889. Under the undisputed facts as shown by the plaintiff's evidence, the jury should have been instructed that at the time the plaintiff assumed the pauper's support he was not transient in South Burlington, and that a verdict should therefore be returned for the defendant. Jericho v. City of Burlington, 66 Vt. 529.

The plaintiff does not contend that any part of its claim is covered by St. 1892, No. 55, but puts its right of recovery upon the ground that the pauper was transient under St. 1886, No. 42.

III. Against the exception of the defendant the plaintiff was permitted to show that Milo Durfee learned that the suit between Worcester and East Montpelier was terminated in favor of East Montpelier. This evidence was admitted as tending to prove that Milo Durfee thereafter kept the pauper under such circumstances as to constitute an implied contract on the part of Worcester to pay for such support.

Against the defendant's exception, and as tending to prove such an implied contract on the part of Worcester, the plaintiff was also permitted to show that Milo Durfee commenced suit against it, returnable to the September term, 1890, of Chittenden county court, to recover for the support of Daniel from the time of the termination of the suit between it and East Montpelier; that the death of Milo Durfee was suggested in the case at the April term, 1891, and his administrator entered to prosecute the suit, and that it was then pending.

The evidence had no tendency to prove an implied contract

on the part of Worcester, and it was error to admit it for that purpose. We must assume that the county court considered it for the purpose for which it was admitted, in finding the facts which it found, and from the judgment rendered it is to be inferred that it must have found that the pauper was kept. after June, 1889, until Milo Durfee's death under such an implied contract, so that the case fell within the rule laid down. in Leicester v. Brandon. If such a finding was made, there was no evidence to support it.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

G. D. BICKFORD v. TRAVELERS INS. CO.

MAY TERM, 1895.

Accident insurance. Execution and delivery of policy. Recovery under common counts. Must state grounds of motion to dismiss. No recovery after date of proof of claim. Furisdiction of county court by rea

I.

2.

son of amount involved.

The plaintiff is not required to prove the execution of an accident insurance ticket on trial unless the defendant has, under county court rule No. 12, given notice that it will deny the execution.

The possession of the ticket by the plaintiff is evidence tending to show that it has been issued and delivered to him by the defendant.

3.

The defendant objected to the admission of the ticket as evidence for the reason that no recovery could be had upon it under the general counts. Held, that the objection was properly overruled, for (a) a recovery may be had upon a conditional contract under the general counts, and (b) in this case there was a special count in indebitatus assumpsit upon this accident ticket, and it may be presumed, the contrary not appearing, that the recovery was upon this count only. 4. A party should state the precise grounds on which he bases his motion for a verdict, and if he does not, the trial court may well disregard it.

5. The contract of insurance in this case provided for an indemnity not exceeding twenty-six consecutive weeks, and that proofs of claim should be furnished within seven months from the date of injury. Held, that no recovery could be had for any period after the date of the final proof of loss. 6. Held, that it did not affirmatively appear that the plaintiff brought his suit to the county court in bad faith, and that, therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction by reason of the amount involved, was properly overruled.

Assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the September term, 1894, Orleans county, TYLER, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts.

The plaintiff claimed to recover upon a policy of accident insurance. Upon the trial he offered in evidence a paper purporting upon its face to be an accident ticket, the material part of which is as follows:

"The Travelers Insurance Company, of Hartford, Conn., hereby insures G. D. Bickford, of Barton, Vt., for the term fixed by the coupons still attached hereto, against loss of time not exceeding twenty-six consecutive weeks, resulting from bodily injuries effected during the term of this insurance, through external, violent, and accidental means, which shall, independently of all other causes, immediately and wholly disable him from transacting any and every kind of business; or in event of death solely therefrom within ninety days, will pay the principal sum to his legal representatives;