*1 Appellant Respondent, CHANCE, STATE, LAv. 45) (57 N. W.2d 1953) ((File Opinion February No. 9293. field Appellant. Henrikson, Watertown, Hanten & Atty. Gen. Asst. Ralph Barron, Dunham, A. and Ed Atty. Respondent. Gen., for rape upon
PER CURIAM. Defendant was convicted of years age, woman, nineteen and sentenced to a term of years prison. A fifteen motion for new trial was over- appeals ruled and defendant from the of convic- tion. carefully read the record and
We have have concluded conflicting amply that the evidence which is sustained assigned, verdict. Other errors are but there is no error justify a reversal. which judgment appealed from is affirmed. Judges All the concur. Respondent, COUNTY, COUNTY, v.
DAVISON McCOOK
Appellant 43) (57 W.2d N. 1953) (File Opinion February 14, filed No. 9291. *2 Sheild, R. Atty., M. Salem, State’s County, for Defendant Appellant. and Kelly,
C. J. Atty., State’s Davison County, Mitchell, Nichol, Fred J. former State’s Atty., Davison Mitch- ell, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
LEEDOM, women, elderly J. Two' both having legal settlement McCook South Dakota for poor relief purposes, started to receive old age assistance from the State Department Social Security 21, on October 9, and November 1936 respectively. Each has continuously received such assistance since. One moved from McCook 2, County August to Davison 1939 and the other moved Both, except temporary there June 1940. absences of present one, time. have the remained in Davison days Davison served women within 30 on one of the August county, after 1939 the arrival in date of her the statutory prevent obtaining from notice her settlement, at further on her nor but served no security lady. as their all on social the other Inasmuch requirements all their state did not meet checks County during additional care 1950 furnished covering attention, claims medical and submitted County. charges to McCook theory
It under officials that especially amended, 50.01 of SDC 50.0102(6) (7), as enacted in Ch. *3 Supp. legal 50.0102, the settlement of has these women changed County they never from McCook since receiv- have age continuously beginning ed old assistance at a time when County place legal McCook the was of their settlement. Except by County for the claims filed Davison Mc- with County covering furnished, Cook the items of additional aid County given application no McCook either of notice was help County the nor it had that been furnished. McCook rejected theory legal the claims on the that settlement there long long had lost since been due to absence the county. judgment The circuit court entered for Davison County against County on its suit to on recover the claims so filed. question receiving principal in the case the atten- question
tion of both
and
counsel
the
court
circuit
and the
which the circuit court deemed decisive of the issues was
payment
age
whether or not continuous
of the so-called old
pension,
recipients
legal
that started while the
had
settle-
County, prevented
recipients
ment in McCook
the
from los-
ing
legal
gaining
their
in
settlement McCook
and
le-
gal
provisions
settlement
under
in
of
50.0102(6)
(7),
and
SDC
as amended. The circuit
held
court
(6)
(7)
provisions of these
that the
subsections
would
legal
prevent acquistion of new
settlements in Davison Coun-
ty
age
old
as the
assistance was
inasmuch
continuous from
regardless
inception
against legal
McCook,
of
its
agree
with the circuit
settlement. We
court in this in-
legal
terpretation
settlement,
if
of
of these two subsections
the effect
County;
already changed
but
had not
legal
in Mc-
settlements
inasmuch as it is our view that the
yrere acquired
in Davi-
ones
Cook
were lost and new
County 211, Laws
effective date of Ch.
son
regard
interpretation
Supp. 50.0102,
of
we do not
this
(6)
(7)
For
reasons
decisive of the case.
subsections
appearing
entered below.
hereafter
we reverse the
argued
appellant
Counsel for
has
the words
50.0102(6)
(7),
“public
assistance” as used in SDC
granted by
age
amended do not
old
assistance
include the
Department
Security
pay
the State
of
and that such
Social
recipients
subject
ments therefore do not
to the other
prevent acquisition
of the subsections that
of a
legal
regard
interpre
new
settlement. While we do not
pre
tation of these subsections as decisive of the issues as
viously
possibility
indicate,
stated we here
in view of the
of
legislation,
agree
appel
further
that we are unable to
with
respect.
lant’s counsel in this
We think the
settlement
poor person
change,
of a
would not
after enactment of Ch.
Supp.
regardless
place
50.0102,
long
Dakota,
residence
South
as he continues to re
age pension
being paid
ceive an old
that was
when such
chapter
became effective. Cf. Milwaukee
v. Wauke
sha
236 Wis.
Considering lapse only of time both in women litigation County long volved in the had lived in Davison enough gain legal to settlement and without that acquiring prevent July it, 1, their to 1941 when chapter placed 211, 1941, Ch. Laws became effective. This (6) provisions complete into the law new new of subsection and a (7) Except subdivision of 50.0102. for these new nothing relating poor provisions of to we know relief that living county prevented person, statutory period, in a a legal acquiring except settlement there the service of “warning” prevent acquisition legal notice to of settle (6) given pursuant ment to subsection of SDC 50.0102.Coun respondent any provision have not sel except cited of the law Supp. by 211, 1941, 50.0102,
Ch. Laws virtue of legal settlement of these which two women remained in 592
McCook
in Davison
County
their residence
notwithstanding
County for a period
gain legal
under the law to
long enough
They then,
fact,
settlement.
as a matter of
had their
simply
legal settlement
in
least
to
according
at
record,
211,
this
1941,
before Ch.
Laws
came into- effect.
This
in and
chapter
purport
change
does not
of itself to
legal
merely
settlement.
adds to the law a
provision
It
new
preventing
legal
a
of
settlement
change
long
person
as the
assistance;
to
form
involved continues
receive
of public
legal
but
this case the
settlement had changed from Mc
before the new provision
Cook to
had a
may
While it
be
that
operate.
argued
certain
chance
(7), taken alone
language
literally
of subsection
con
strued,
change
legal
would seem to
established
settlement
case,
from Davison back to McCook
in the instant
quite clearly
legislative
was not the
intent.
such
The title
211,
1941,
and substance of the whole of Ch.
Laws
SDC Supp.
50.0102,
of
text
SDC 50.01
chapter
amends,
which
only
intent
make clear an
to define and
provide
formula for
determining legal settlements
rather
than to change them
county to another
ipso
Certainly
from one
facto.
no clear
anywhere
intention
legislative
appears
in the enactments to
retrospective.
make their
This being so the
not
to operate
will
be construed
statutes
retrospectively. The
statutory
of
construction here
rule
involved is the same as
Farm Mortgage
Noel,
in Federal
applied
Corporation
that
v.
871;
285 N.W.
and the
language
66 S. D.
that opinion
issue.
appropriate
disposing
this
See also In re Sad
Estate, 73 S.D.
59f may inept bearing legislation it have a on future confusing interpretation language on almost defies sensible basis. judgment appeal re-
The taken is from which versed.
RUDOLPH, SICKEL, JJ., concur. SMITH ROBERTS, J.,P. dissents. (dissenting).
ROBERTS, P. J. While I am accord statutory interpretation majority with the set forth in the yet opinion, I am convinced that the record reveals no basis for reversal. The trial court its rendered decision on presented. question issues The whether settlements were acquired in Davison date of effective Act, far. ascertain, the preserved as I can was not raised and'consequently trial court should not be appeal. on considered my opinion should in be affirmed. al.,
ALEXANDER et STATE, Plaintiff v. Defendant (57 121) N. W.2d 1953) (File Opinion February 9215. No. filed