The last two facts are of no particular significance upon the issue of emancipation. In re Settlement of Skog, 186 Minn. 349, 243 N.W. 384. Mason St. 1927, § 3161, the same as L. 1933, c. 385, provides: "Every minor not emancipated and settled in his own right shall have the same settlement as the parent with whom he has resided."
Subsequent cases, involving in each instance the poor relief law, recognized this construction. City of Moorhead v. Town of Flowing, 184 Minn. 509, 239 N.W. 217; In re Settlement of Skog, 186 Minn. 349, 243 N.W. 384; State ex rel. Timo v. Juvenile Court, 188 Minn. 125, 246 N.W. 544; Township of Equality v. Township of Star, 200 Minn. 316, 274 N.W. 219. But we are of the conviction that the term "resided" as used in the old age assistance law was intended by the legislature to mean physical presence in a county coupled with an intent to make a home there.
Redwood county contends that Mrs. Youngquist received relief from the poor fund of Renville county during the months of December, 1935, and March, 1936, by the payment from its poor fund of the bills rendered by the draymen for moving Mrs. Youngquist from that county to Redwood county. If this contention is sustained, Mrs. Youngquist did not have a settlement in Redwood county on the determinative date. The contention of Renville county is that since Mrs. Youngquist received the services in December, 1935, that was the only month in which she received relief from that county. The parties agree that the months during which she received a mother's pension are not to be excluded in determining the time of residence for purposes of settlement, under the rule declared in In re Settlement of Skog, 186 Minn. 349, 243 N.W. 384; and State ex rel. Timo v. Juvenile Court, 188 Minn. 125, 246 N.W. 544. This case comes here with an adjudication, which is not questioned on the appeal, that Mrs. Youngquist received relief from the poor fund of Renville county. That adjudication is final here, although there is authority for the proposition that the subsequent voluntary reimbursement by the poor authorities of one who furnished services to an alleged pauper does not constitute the furnishing of relief within the meaning of the poor laws. Town of Windham v. City of Portland, 23 Me. 410; 48 C. J. p. 478, § 102, notes 14 and 15. The only question for our determination is, when did Mrs. Youngquist receive such relief from the poor fund of Renville county? Was the relief received when the services were rendered or when the county paid for such services?
" (Italics supplied.) The court thereupon discussed In re Settlement of Skog, 186 Minn. 349, 243 N.W. 384, pointing out the distinctions between the mother's pension act and the law relating to paupers, amongst other things saying: "the mother's pension statute is no part of our poor law, although in result it provides public aid to the needy. The beneficiaries are the children rather than the mother.
The pension goes to her whether she has a settlement in the town of Hagen or in the town of Felton. It does not come out of the poor fund of either town. In re Settlement of Skog, 186 Minn. 349, 243 N.W. 384; State ex rel. Timo v. Juvenile Court, 188 Minn. 125, 246 N.W. 544. The evidence herein is conclusive that after the expiration of the farm lease in the town of Hagen, which the town of Felton obtained and paid the rent for, the Vincents remained on the farm not as tenants but as owners, having obtained a contract for deed thereto.
There must be the added elements necessary to convert that residence into settlement under the poor laws. Under G. S. 1923 (1 Mason, 1927) § 3161, the time during which a person has "received relief from the poor fund of any county or municipality shall be excluded in determining the time of residence" necessary to make a settlement. If that also conditions a mother's pension, the decision below is right. Otherwise it is wrong. 3. As pointed out in In re Settlement of Skog, 186 Minn. 349, 243 N.W. 384, the mother's pension law differs from the poor relief law both as to coverage and purpose. The conditions precedent to the two sorts of relief and the standards of need of the beneficiaries are by no means the same.