Town of Washington v. Town of Kent
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit for money paid for the support of paupers; brought to the Superior Court and tried to the jury before Granger, J. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial for error in the charge of the court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtPark, J.
We think the notice given in this case by the selectmen of the plaintiff town to the selectmen of the defendant town, describing the paupers in the following maimer, “ Frances Payne, Anna Payne, and an infant child, wife and children of Arthur Payne, inhabitants of the town of Kent,” was sufficient. No objection is made to the description of either of the paupers with the exception of that given of the infant child, and in relation to that the objection consists in the fact that the name of the child was not given. It is claimed that, inasmuch as the statute requires the name to be given, it…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Town of Middletown v. Town of BerlinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1846
- Town of Reading v. Town of WestportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1849
3Cited by8 opinions
- Neuberger v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- Inhabitants of Whately v. Inhabitants of HatfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Town of Chaplin v. Town of BloomfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1918
- Inhabitants of Topsham v. Inhabitants of LewistonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1882
- Town of Old Saybrook v. Town of MilfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.