Town of Charleston v. Town of Lunenburgh
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indebitatus Assumpsit for money paid, laid out and expended Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, June Term, 1850, — Poland J., presiding. The plaintiffs’ claim was for money paid for board and clothing for William S. Hinman, a pauper.
Read the full summary
Indebitatus Assumpsit for money paid, laid out and expended Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, June Term, 1850, — Poland J., presiding. The plaintiffs’ claim was for money paid for board and clothing for William S. Hinman, a pauper. On trial the plaintiffs offered in evidence an order of removal of Hinman from Charleston to Luneniburgh, made by two justices of the peace, March 4, 1847, and a warrant of removal, dated March 6, 1847, which issued to enforce the same order, and a return thereon, that Hinman was removed March 8, 1847; — to all which the defendants objected, but the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
In regard to the effect of an order of removal, there can be no doubt. It has been settled for many years, that, unless appealed from, it is conclusive evidence of the settlement of the pauper. Numerous cases, in the reports of this state, to that effect, will be found.
Upon the question, whether the case comes within section 12 of chap. 16 of the Rev. St., much will depend upon how far we adopt a' merely literal construction. In the most literal construction, we do not think it important, that the sickness should have been sudden. The terms…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Patrick v. Town of BaldwinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Stone v. Town of GloverSupreme Court of Vermont · 1888