Town of Woodstock v. Town of Barnard
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for the support of a pauper. Heard upon an agreed statement of facts at the May term, 1894, Windsor county, Thompson, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. ' The pauper was arrested on civil process March 12, 1892, and committed to jail in plaintiff town, where he remained until December 9, 1892. The support sued for was furnished between these dates.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for the support of a pauper. Heard upon an agreed statement of facts at the May term, 1894, Windsor county, Thompson, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. ' The pauper was arrested on civil process March 12, 1892, and committed to jail in plaintiff town, where he remained until December 9, 1892. The support sued for was furnished between these dates. No notice was given by the overseer of the plaintiff to the overseer of the defendant until February 24, 1893. The pauper had acquired a three years’ residence in Barnard previously to 1874. Since that time…
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
I. No question is made but that the pauper for whose support this suit was brought was transient in the plaintiff town, nor that the defendant town was the one where he had last resided for the space of three years, supporting himself and family. The defendant, therefore, was chargeable with the support of the pauper. No. 55, Acts 1892.
II. A town chargeable with the support of a pauper is not liable under said act, if it provides for the pauper after the notice required by such act is given, for the statute reads that no action brought to recover the assistance given the pauper “shall be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Town of Randolph v. Town of RoxburySupreme Court of Vermont · 1897