Inhabitants of Braintree v. Inhabitants of Hingham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit for the expense of supporting Mary Lovis and her two children, paupers, alleged by the plaintiffs to have their lawful settlement in Hingham.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for the expense of supporting Mary Lovis and her two children, paupers, alleged by the plaintiffs to have their lawful settlement in Hingham. The defendants plead in bar that long before the commencement of this action, the overseers of the poor of Braintree gave legal notice to the overseers of the poor of the town of Marblehead, that the said paupers had become chargeable to Braintree, and that their settlement was in Marblehead; to which notice no answer being returned within two months, the now plaintiffs in September, 1820, obtained a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas,…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The plea in bar is insufficient. The facts stated in it arose inter alios. None are estopped by deed or by pleadings, but parties and privies; and none others can take advantage of an estoppel. The defendants are strangers to the record in the former suit. If the plaintiffs have heretofore made a mistake in calling upon a town not liable, this furnishes no reason why they should not be permitted to call on another town, whom they ha\e since discovered to be legally answerable.
2Cited by1 opinion
- County of Merrimack v. DerrySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1966