Town of Waitsfield v. Town of Craftsbury
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit to recover money expended in tbe support of a pauper. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the September Term, 1932, Washington County, Stanton, J., presiding. Verdict directed for the defendant, and judgment thereon. The plaintiff excepted. The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the CourtBasblton, J.
This is assumpsit under the pauper law to recover for money expended in the support of one Jerry Doying and his family. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence a verdict was directed for the defendant town. The plaintiff excepted.
*408March 10, 1910, the overseer of the town of Waitsñeld sent to the overseer of- the town of Craftsbury the following notice, duly dated, directed and signed: “There is a man in our town by the name of Jerry Doying. He claims to have a residence in Craftsbury. His wife is sick and he has called on us for aid. At the present time we have-to furnish a. physician, keep…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Town of Londonderry v. Town of ActonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1830
- Town of Ripton v. Town of BrandonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1907
- Coffeen v. Town of PrebleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Town of Worcester v. Town of East MontpelierSupreme Court of Vermont · 1888
- Town of Mount Holly v. Town of PeruSupreme Court of Vermont · 1899
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Town of Manchester v. Town of TownshendSupreme Court of Vermont · 1938
- Town of Barnet v. Town of NortonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916
- Hotel Vermont Co. v. CosgriffSupreme Court of Vermont · 1915
- Nadeau v. MarchessaultSupreme Court of Vermont · 1942
- Peabody v. Town of HollandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.