Inhabitants of Marlborough v. Inhabitants of Rutland
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the sum of 104 dollars, expended by the plaintiffs for the support of Philip Boyns and his wife, paupers, whose settlement the plaintiffs allege to be in Rutland.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the sum of 104 dollars, expended by the plaintiffs for the support of Philip Boyns and his wife, paupers, whose settlement the plaintiffs allege to be in Rutland. The action was tried upon the general issue, at the sittings here after the last October term, before Jackson, J. It appeared at the trial that, in the notice given pursuant to the statute, it was not stated that the paupers then were, or had been, in the town of Marlborough. On receipt of this notice, the defendants sent an answer, denying that the paupers had their legal…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
The question raised in this case is, whether, to entitle the inhabitants of a town, who have supported a pauper belonging to another town, to recover an indemnification, it is necessary that the pauper should have been actually resident in the town providing the relief at the time when notice is given to the town of his settlement, and should literally have fallen into distress within that town.
The report of the judge states that, during all the time comprehending the charges for which this action was brought, the pauper was resident in the town of Spencer, but. supported there at the expense…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Aldrich v. Inhabitants of BlackstoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- City of Northampton v. Inhabitants of PlainfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Inhabitants of Deerfield v. Inhabitants of GreenfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1854
- Inhabitants of East Sudbury v. SudburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1831