Ex parte Overseers of the Poor
New York Supreme Court
At a previous term, a rule had been obtained to show cause, why a mandamus should not issue, to the Supervisors of the county of Monroe, commanding them to audit and allow to the Overseers of the town of Gates, in that county, the expenses which they had paid towards the maintenance of certain transient paupers, having no residence in this state.
Read the full summary
At a previous term, a rule had been obtained to show cause, why a mandamus should not issue, to the Supervisors of the county of Monroe, commanding them to audit and allow to the Overseers of the town of Gates, in that county, the expenses which they had paid towards the maintenance of certain transient paupers, having no residence in this state. On showing cause, it appeared that the account being presented to the board of Supervisors, they referred the matter to a committee, who called on' the two Justices who made the several' orders of maintenance upon which the disbursements claimed by…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodworth, J.
In determining the question raised, he said, it is necessary to look at -the provisions of three several sections of the “act for the relief and settlement.of the poor,” viz. the 7th, 16th and 25th, (1 R. L. 280, 284, 287.) The 7th section provides, that if any overseer of the poor shall have reason to believe that any stranger is likely to become chargeable to his town, he shall apply to two Justices, who shall examine the stranger and others, on oath, relating not only to the abilities, but the last place of his legal settlement, with a view to his removal. That section also contemplates an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Voorhis v. Whipple & HawesNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Adams v. Supervisors of Columbia CountyNew York Supreme Court · 1811
3Cited by1 opinion
- Chamberlain v. ChamberlainNew York Supreme Court · 1870