Northwood v. Barrington
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit for the support of Vowell Willey, from 21st of January, 1836, to 26th March, 1836. On the trial it appeared that the relief had been furnished to the pauper within the period specified in the writ, by direction of the selectmen of Northwood, and that they had promised, in behalf of the town, to pay for the same.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for the support of Vowell Willey, from 21st of January, 1836, to 26th March, 1836. On the trial it appeared that the relief had been furnished to the pauper within the period specified in the writ, by direction of the selectmen of Northwood, and that they had promised, in behalf of the town, to pay for the same. It appeared that a part only of the amount thus furnished and claimed had been paid for at the time of the trial; and the defendants objected that no recovery could be had for any sum which had not actually been paid ; but the court overruled the objection. The plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the CourtUpham, J.
In the case, Lee vs. Deerfield, 3 N. H. R. 290, it was settled that, in order to maintain an action for *373supplies furnished to a pauper, it is not necessary that the town bringing the action should show that it had paid for the supplies furnished, before notice was given to the town chargeable ; and the uniform ruling of the court since that time has been in conformity with that decision.
The exception arose from the phraseology of the statute, that the town supporting a pauper should recover of the town chargeable “ the sums expended” in such pauper’s relief. But this term, of sums expended,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thatcher v. MillerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
3Cited by2 opinions
- Peterborough v. LancasterSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Cass v. BellowsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1855