Downing v. Rugar
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of trover, tried at the Yates circuit, in June, 18.38, before the Hon. Daniel Moseley, one of the circuit judges. The suit was brought for the taking of a horse.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trover, tried at the Yates circuit, in June, 18.38, before the Hon. Daniel Moseley, one of the circuit judges. The suit was brought for the taking of a horse. The defendant justified the taking as an overseer of the poor, by virtue of a warrant issued by two justices, on a complaint made to them by the overseers of the poor of the town of Potter, in the county of Yates, that the plaintiff had absconded, leaving his wife and child chargeable or likely to become chargeable to the public for support. The warrant, issued 15th January, 1838, after reciting the complaint,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cowen, .1
The jury found, under the ■charge of the judge, that the distinction between town and comity poor had not been abolished in the county of Yates, and the only questions presented by this case are, 1. Whether the proceeding was void for want of action by two overseers - and if not, then -2. Whether it was void because the plaintiff’s wife was the sole witness before the justices.
1. The statute requires each town to elect two overseers. .1 R. S. 332, § 4. I therefore think, till the contrary be shown, we must intend there were two in the town of Potter. Besides, it is quite…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barhydt v. ValkNew York Supreme Court · 1834
3Cited by54 opinions
- Albany County Savings Bank v. McCartyNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Hamilton v. State ex rel. BatesIndiana Supreme Court · 1852
- Rushville Gas Co. v. City of RushvilleIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Paola & Fall River Railway Co. v. Comm'rs of Anderson CountySupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
- Wakeman v. . WilburNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.