Rouse v. Moore
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action on the case, to recover compensation for supporting Elijah Briggs, a pauper, removed to Pittstown, by the overseers of Plattsburgh, by virtue of an order, which was, afierwards, quashed at the Court of Sessions of Clinton county. The action was for the expenses of supporting the pauper alter the order of removal was granted.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case, to recover compensation for supporting Elijah Briggs, a pauper, removed to Pittstown, by the overseers of Plattsburgh, by virtue of an order, which was, afierwards, quashed at the Court of Sessions of Clinton county. The action was for the expenses of supporting the pauper alter the order of removal was granted. This cause came before the Court in October term, 1818, on a demurrer to the second plea, on which the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff. (S. C. 15 Johns. Rep. 436.) Most of the facts in the case appear in the pleadings there stated. The plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the Court
Spencer, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. It has been objected that the plaintiffs, as overseers of the poor of Pittstown, have not a capacity to sue for the injury apege(j jn declaration. This point was reserved when a questi°n on the pleadings came before the Court, (IS Johns. Rep. 436.) in this cause. However correct the principle may be, ordinarily, that the Court will not, upon a motion in arrest of judgment, suffer a point decided on demurrer, tobe again agitated, that principle has no application here ; for the demurrer was not to the declaration, but to the second plea.…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Mott v. HicksNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Morrow v. WoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- Gould v. GlassNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Jansen v. OstranderNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Stevens v. Lake George & Muskegon River RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.