Chichester v. Pembroke
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Where the town of C, gave notice to the town of P that the town of C. had expended $35 87 for the relief of “ Sally and Esther B., and also daughter of ** Sally B ,” paupers having their settlement in P.; it was held, that “ daughter ./‘of Sally É." was not a sufficient designation of any particular person; and that as no particular sum was stated as expended for the relief of the other two paupers, the notice was altogether bad.
Read the full summary
Where the town of C, gave notice to the town of P that the town of C. had expended $35 87 for the relief of “ Sally and Esther B., and also daughter of ** Sally B ,” paupers having their settlement in P.; it was held, that “ daughter ./‘of Sally É." was not a sufficient designation of any particular person; and that as no particular sum was stated as expended for the relief of the other two paupers, the notice was altogether bad. Assumpsit for money expended in the relief and support of Sally Benson, Esther Benson, and Hannah Benson, daughter of the said Sally Benson, paupers, alleged to have…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
The statute of June 27, 1809,(1) enact», H ihat aImn any person in any town, &c. shall be poor and '• ar..i V ,o maintain him or herself, such person shall be re-vcj , ' n aintained by the overseers, &c. where such or, ’ happen to be : and in case such town, &c, is r n, u h rgeable with the maintenance of such poor • fb< may by action, &c. recover of the town, &c. i-> by law with the maintenance of such poor • il suco sums as they shall have expended, &c. t d that in all cases notice in writing, signed by a •iriiy of said selectmen, &c. and stating the sums ex, i: mb (I l>v them…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Barnstead v. StraffordSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1835