Town of Putney v. Town of Dummerston
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, in two counts. The first count was in common form for money paid, laid out and expended. In the second count, the plaintiffs alleged, in substance, that on the 27th of November, 1837, Avis Atwood, a stranger, came to reside in Dummerston, and, without having gained a settlement there, became chargeable as a pauper; that, upon complaint made of the overseers of the poor in Dummerston to two justices of the peace, said justices made an order for the removal of said…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, in two counts. The first count was in common form for money paid, laid out and expended. In the second count, the plaintiffs alleged, in substance, that on the 27th of November, 1837, Avis Atwood, a stranger, came to reside in Dummerston, and, without having gained a settlement there, became chargeable as a pauper; that, upon complaint made of the overseers of the poor in Dummerston to two justices of the peace, said justices made an order for the removal of said Avis to the town of Putney, under which order she was removed to Putney, on the 30th of November, 1837, and left with…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
It appears, from the bill of exceptions, that the facts stated in the second count in the declaration were proved, though no evidence of an express promise was given. it was proved, then, that the pauper came to reside in Dummerston, but had no legal settlement in that town, and that after becoming chargeable, she was removed to Putney under an order of two justices, which had been appealed from and reversed. After the reversal, the pauper remained in Putney and was supported by that town ; and it is for this support that the plaintiffs…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Town of Sheldon v. Town of FairfaxSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849