Town of Marlborough v. Sisson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action on the case, alleging that the defendants on the 8th day of January, 1851, wrongfully and fraudulently transported a pauper, named Samuel Ingraham, from the town of East Haddam, where he was then residing and was supported as a pauper, and where the defendants resided, to the town of Marlborough, where he had ever since remained, and been a charge upon the town as a panper — that he was brought there by the defendants for the purpose of throwing the burden of his…
Read the full summary
Action on the case, alleging that the defendants on the 8th day of January, 1851, wrongfully and fraudulently transported a pauper, named Samuel Ingraham, from the town of East Haddam, where he was then residing and was supported as a pauper, and where the defendants resided, to the town of Marlborough, where he had ever since remained, and been a charge upon the town as a panper — that he was brought there by the defendants for the purpose of throwing the burden of his support upon the town of Marlborougli — that the pauper had no legal settlement in Marlborough — and that the defendants,…
1Opinion of the CourtDutton, J.
On the 8th of January, 1851, the defendants, then being selectmen of East Haddam, removed a pauper from East Haddam to Marlborough. The pauper had no settlement in Marlborough, and no known settlement in the state. The course pursued by the defendants would have been lawful if the pauper had belonged in Marlborough. The pauper became chargeable, and Marlborough brought a suit against the defendants, and in 1857 recovered judgment for damages, including the expenses incurred up to the time of the judgment. Afterwards the plaintiffs called on the defendants to remove the pauper, which they…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bissell v. SpencerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
3Cited by3 opinions
- Burritt v. BelfySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1879
- Hall v. PaineSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1880
- Claflin & Kimball v. Mather Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1899