Overseers of the Poor v. Overseers of the Poor
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an appeal from an order of removal, wbeyehy Nathan Watson, a pauper, was ordered to be removed from Fairlee to Corinth; from which order Corinth appealed to the County-Court.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order of removal, wbeyehy Nathan Watson, a pauper, was ordered to be removed from Fairlee to Corinth; from which order Corinth appealed to the County-Court. On the trial, it appeared that the pauper had his settlement in Corinth, unless prevented from gaining a. settlement, by-force of the following proceeding: Within the first year of Watson’s residence in Corinth, a warning was issued^ in due form pf law, from, the Selectmen, directing the Constable to summon Watson to depart said town. Upon that warning was the fob-lowing return: “ Corinth, Aug. 22,1806.1 then…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gollamer, J.
This is a question upon the sufficiency of a warning-out process. Little aid can be derived from the cases cited in argument. These cases are mere precedents, and, to render them of force, the words must be the same and stand in the same connection. For instance, the case that decided that the preposition with, in the connection-, in which it there stood, did not mean within, is an authority for no other word whatever. Townsend v. Athens, 1 Vt. Rep. 284. As authorities, these cases have no great importance, because they settle no principle…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Overseers of the Poor of Waterford v. Overseers of the Poor of BrookfieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1829
- Town of Townsend v. Town of AthensSupreme Court of Vermont · 1828