Inhabitants of Peru v. Poland
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. An action under E. S., c. 24, § 45, for re-imbursement for pauper supplies furnished the defendant upon her application by-Oxford and Auburn and re-imbursed by the plaintiff town where the defendant had a legal settlement.
Read the full summary
On report. An action under E. S., c. 24, § 45, for re-imbursement for pauper supplies furnished the defendant upon her application by-Oxford and Auburn and re-imbursed by the plaintiff town where the defendant had a legal settlement. The opinion states the material facts. cited : Brewer v. East Machias, 27 Maine, 495; Gutter v. Maker, 41 Maine, 594; Deer Isle v. Eaton, 12 Mass. 328; Kenneburikport v. Smith, 22 Maine, 449; Alna v. Plummer, 4 Maine, 262; Green v. Buckjield, 3 Maine, 136 ; Dixmont v. BidAeford, 3 Maine, 205 ; Augusta v. Kingfidd, 36 Maine, 239; Raymond v. Harrison, 11 Maine, 190…
1Opinion of the CourtEmery, J.
From the evidence and admissions we gather the following facts.
The defendant was a married woman but had been deserted by her husband who had left the state. Her pauper settlement was in the plaintiff town solely by virtue of her husband’s pauper settlement being in that town. In 1879 and 1880, after the husband’s desertion, the plaintiff town incurred expense for the support of the defendant, she having called for, and received pauper supplies. The action is under R. S., 1871, c. 24, sec. *21734, now E. S., 1883, c. 24, sec. 45. The only question is, whether her coverture is a bar.
We do not think…
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of Auburn v. Inhabitants of FarmingtonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1934
- Hudnall v. KijakaziDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023