Inhabitants of Ellsworth v. Inhabitants of Houlton
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Reported by Rice, J. This was an action to recover the sum of §32, for supplies furnished and expenses paid on account of one James Cox, a pauper, whose settlement is alleged to be in the defendant town. It is admitted that said Cox was a pauper, and that the plaintiffs furnished supplies and paid for his funeral expenses to the amount charged.
Read the full summary
Reported by Rice, J. This was an action to recover the sum of §32, for supplies furnished and expenses paid on account of one James Cox, a pauper, whose settlement is alleged to be in the defendant town. It is admitted that said Cox was a pauper, and that the plaintiffs furnished supplies and paid for his funeral expenses to the amount charged. The plaintiffs introduced a notice addressed to the overseers of the poor of Houlton, without any date, and is as follows :— “ You are hereby notified that James Cox, aged about fifty years, who had his legal settlement in your town, has been…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Appleton, J.
This action is brought to recover the expenses of the last sickness and burial of one James Cox, incurred within three months before the notice required by R. S., 1857, c. 24, § 27, was given.
(1.) Paupers, while living, are supported, and, when dead, are buried at the public charge. It is the duty of the overseers of the poor to relieve those falling in distress and, in case of their death, to bury them. When these expenses are incurred at a place other than that of the pauper’s settlement, they may be recovered after due notice of the town…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Inhabitants of Leicester v. Inhabitants of RehobothMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
3Cited by1 opinion
- Milwaukee County v. City of SheboyganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896