Inhabitants of Thomaston v. Inhabitants of Greenbush
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Agreed statement. Action for pauper supplies. Plea general issue, with brief statement that the notices were insufficient, said notices not stating the number; nor whether they were all or part of the children of Alden B. Partridge; neither did the notices state the age, sex or condition; nor whether the children were living with their parents or apart from them, — the only designation being children.
Read the full summary
Agreed statement. Action for pauper supplies. Plea general issue, with brief statement that the notices were insufficient, said notices not stating the number; nor whether they were all or part of the children of Alden B. Partridge; neither did the notices state the age, sex or condition; nor whether the children were living with their parents or apart from them, — the only designation being children. Amount of supplies alleged to have been furnished from December 11, 1901, to January 30, 1903, $170.80. Admitted that the supplies were properly furnished as declared in the writ; admitted that…
1Opinion of the CourtSavage, J.
Action to recover for pauper supplies. The only question in controversy between the parties is whether the notice which described the persons relieved as “the children of Alden B. Partridge,” and in no other way, is sufficiently definite. It is *142admitted that the children supplied and referred to in the notice were all of the children of Alden B. Partridge, were minors, and were living Avith their mother in Thomaston when the supplies Avere furnished and the notices given.
The statute provides that overseers, “shall send a Avritten notice, signed by one or more of them, stating the facts…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Inhabitants of Shutesbury v. Inhabitants of OxfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Town of Burlington v. Town of EssexSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Inhabitants of Embden v. Inhabitants of AugustaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815