Trustees of Millcreek v. Trustees of Miami
Ohio Supreme Court
This is an action of debt from the county of Hamilton. The action was commenced in the court of common pleas of Hamilton county, for money expended in the support of a pauper, and removed into this court by appeal. On trial, a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiffs, subject to the. opinion of the court on the following state of facts : David Coogals was originally settled in the township of Miami.
Read the full summary
This is an action of debt from the county of Hamilton. The action was commenced in the court of common pleas of Hamilton county, for money expended in the support of a pauper, and removed into this court by appeal. On trial, a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiffs, subject to the. opinion of the court on the following state of facts : David Coogals was originally settled in the township of Miami. On or about February 2, 1835, he removed to the township of Millereek, where, in August of the same year, he became a pauper and a township charge. The overseers of the poor of Millereek,…
1Opinion of the CourtHitchcock, J.
Most of the questions arising in this case have been already decided at the present term in the case of Trustees of Williamsburg v. Trustees of Jackson, in which, under circumstances somewhat similar to the present case, a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. There is this difference, however, in the two cases : in the case cited, one of the paupers to whom the relief had been furnished was not in a situation to be removed, and as to the other, the relief was merely temporary; while in the case before the court, the relief furnished was permanent, and it does not appear but that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Naglee v. A. &. F. RailroadSupreme Court of Virginia · 1887
- Hooker v. De PalosOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1873