Austin v. Inhabitants of York
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. Assumpsit for soldier’s bounty. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. The article in the warrant was sufficient for the vote of August 23d. R. S., c. 3, § 5 requires “ the business to be acted upon” only to be stated in distinct articles. In Blackburn v. Walpole, 9 Pick. 97, the “ subject ” to be acted on was all that was necessary to be stated in the article.
Read the full summary
On report. Assumpsit for soldier’s bounty. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. The article in the warrant was sufficient for the vote of August 23d. R. S., c. 3, § 5 requires “ the business to be acted upon” only to be stated in distinct articles. In Blackburn v. Walpole, 9 Pick. 97, the “ subject ” to be acted on was all that was necessary to be stated in the article. This case was approved in Avery v. Stewart, 1 Cush. 502. “ To give previous notice of the subjects to be acted on is tlie object of a warrant.” Torrey v. Milbury, 21 Pick. 68. “ If it gives intelligible notice of…
1Opinion of the CourtDickerson, J.
Action for soldier’s bounty. Under an article in tlie warrant, calling tlie town meeting, “ to see if tlie town would vote to pay tlie same bounty to tliose who may enlist, as volunteers in the army of the United States, after the 15th of August, 1862, as is iiow paid by the town to those who enlisted before that time, and make the necessary provision for funds for that purpose,” the town voted “ that the sum of $200 be paid to each person who shall enlist as a volunteer in the army of the United States . . . and that the treasurer of the town be authorized and directed, under the direction…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Perry v. Town of FriendshipSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1968
- State v. Town of FranklinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1985