Worcester v. Ballard
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. The only item in dispute was for the board of a pauper. The case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, which sufficiently appear in the syllabus, and in the opinion of the court. Upon the agreed facts the court at the May Term, 1864, Barrett, J., presiding, rendered judgment for the plaintiff to recover $1.25 per week for the two years claimed, with interest on the amount for each year from the end thereof, — to which the defendant excepted.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Poland, Ch. J.
It was said by the court in Aldrich v. Londonderry, 5 Vt. 441, that there is no implied contract on the part of a town to pay for services, or relief afforded to a pauper, which was not afforded at their special request. In Castleton v. Miner et al., 8 Vt. 209, the court said, speaking of the obligation of towns to support their paupers, “ The obligation is altogether a matter of positive law, and the right of any one to compel towns to pay for the support of their poor is one stricti juris, and cannot be enforced except *61in accordance…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Aldrich v. Town of LondonderrySupreme Court of Vermont · 1833
- Selectmen of Castleton v. MinerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1836
- Wolcott v. Town of WolcottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
3Cited by3 opinions
- Town School District v. Town School DistrictSupreme Court of Vermont · 1905
- Hickok v. Town of ShelburneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- Tufts v. Town of ChesterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1890