Town of Shrewsbury v. Town of Mount Holley
Supreme Court of Vermont
The only question in this case was whether a certain pauper had his legal settlement in Mount Holley or in Shrewsbury. It was admitted to have been in Mount Holly if a certain warning, served on him in Shrewsbury, was legal and sufficient.
Read the full summary
The only question in this case was whether a certain pauper had his legal settlement in Mount Holley or in Shrewsbury. It was admitted to have been in Mount Holly if a certain warning, served on him in Shrewsbury, was legal and sufficient. The ing was in proper form, and regularly signed by the select-men of Shrewsbury ; but the word “ select-men,” only, was annexed to their signatures, the words “ of Shrewsbury,” which seem to have been required by the form prescribed by statute, being omitted. The county court decided that the warning was sufficient. The counsel for Mount Holley excepted to…
1Opinion of the Court
Pbentiss J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. — The warning, upon the validity of which the question in this case arises, is conceded to be regular and formal in all respects but one. It is signed by John Kilbourn and others, with the word “ selectmen” annexed to their names, but without adding the words of Shrews-bury. It is insisted, that the form prescribed by the statute requires the addition of the latter words, and, that for the .want of them, the warning is defective and void. The form given by the statute must undoubtedly be pursued in every essential particular; but it is not every…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Adams v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Vermont · 1863
- Inhabitants of Hamilton v. Inhabitants of IpswichMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813