Inhabitants of Norwich v. Inhabitants of Saybrook
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit for the support of Margaret Helping, a pauper. In January, 1810, the pauper had a settlement in Saybrook. From that time until November, 1820, she resided and had her home in Norwich, being sole and unmarried; and during the whole of this period, she supported herself.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit for the support of Margaret Helping, a pauper. In January, 1810, the pauper had a settlement in Saybrook. From that time until November, 1820, she resided and had her home in Norwich, being sole and unmarried; and during the whole of this period, she supported herself. In 1811, her minor daughter Sarah Helping, who had a settlement in the state of Rhode-Island, but none in this state, and who had, for several years previously, resided with, and in the family of, the pauper, in Norwich, without having been warned to depart from the town, became chargeable; and…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
Did the pauper, during her residence in Norwich, support herself and family, without being chargeable to the town? This is the first enquiry ; and it is certain, that she did not support her family, if Sarah Helping, her minor daughter, is embraced within that term. It is a conceded point that the mother was under a legal obligation to support her *387daughter ; so that in the strictest sense, while she lived with her mother, she was one of her family ; nor could this be decently controverted, in the face of the mother’s natural duty, enforced by the plain expressions of the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Caylat v. Houston East & West Texas Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1923
- Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. MillerTexas Commission of Appeals · 1932
- Sherman v. DutchIllinois Supreme Court · 1855
- Burrell Township v. Pittsburg Guardians of the PoorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Milwaukee County v. Oconto CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.