Inhabitants of Goshen v. Inhabitants of Stonington
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit, to recover the sum of 380 dollars, expended, by the plaintiffs, at the special instance and request of the defendants, for the support of Betsey Cooke, the wife of Joseph Cooke, and their five children, from the 8th of October, 1818, to the 9th of September, 1820, alleged to be paupers, having their legal settlement in the town of Stonington, and residing in the town of Goshen, at the time the support was furnished.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, to recover the sum of 380 dollars, expended, by the plaintiffs, at the special instance and request of the defendants, for the support of Betsey Cooke, the wife of Joseph Cooke, and their five children, from the 8th of October, 1818, to the 9th of September, 1820, alleged to be paupers, having their legal settlement in the town of Stonington, and residing in the town of Goshen, at the time the support was furnished. The cause was tried at Litchfield, August term, 1821, before Bristol, J. Joseph Cooke was born, and had his legal place of settlement, in the town…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
In this case, several questions have been raised, on which I shall express an opinion, in the order in which they have been presented by the defendants’ counsel.
1. It has been objected, that an actual request for the supplies furnished the paupers, or an express promise of payment, was requisite, to fix a legal liability on the defendants.
If the advancements made had been voluntary, the objection would be well founded, and fatal to the plaintiffs’ hopes; but, they were compelled by law to make them; and in this event, the law gives a right of recovery. The plaintiffs’ case may…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Foster v. President of the Essex BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Wales v. StetsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
- Call v. HaggerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- King v. President, Directors, & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Curtis v. HurlburtSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1817
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by79 opinions
- Wynehamer v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- State v. WebbSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- People v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Ducharme v. City of PutnamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
- Moore v. GanimSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.