Trumbull v. Moss
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action on the statute with regard to paupers,- (Rev. Stat., tit. 42, \ 16), brought against the defendant, as a selectman of the town of Stonington, to recover a penalty for refusing to furnish support to one Miller,- a pauper.
Read the full summary
Action on the statute with regard to paupers,- (Rev. Stat., tit. 42, \ 16), brought against the defendant, as a selectman of the town of Stonington, to recover a penalty for refusing to furnish support to one Miller,- a pauper. The action was brought originally before a justice of the peace, and was appealed by the defendant-to the superior'court. ■- The 16th section of- the statute provides that “ it shall be the duty of the selectmen of every town, whenever a . person, not an inhabitant of such town, residing [ *254 ] therein, shall become poor and unable to support, himself, to furnish…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCurdy, J.
It is the humane purpose of our law in relation to the support of paupers, to prevent as far as possible any person, under any circumstances, from suffering for the neces ” *210saries of life. For the supplies which are required to be furnished, the ultimate liability rests upon different parties—town, state, or relatives—according to the facts in each particular case. But to avoid delays which might be fatal, the duty of making immediate provision is devolved upon thé selectmen of towns. To ensure the performance of this duty, the statute enacts, that “ it shall be the duty of the selectmen of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Town of New-Milford v. Town of ShermanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1851
3Cited by7 opinions
- Moore v. GanimSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- City of Enderlin v. Pontiac TownshipNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
- Connecticut Hospital for the Insane v. Town of BrookfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
- Hartford Hospital v. Town of GlastonburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Slade v. SladeConnecticut Superior Court · 1936
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.