Inhabitants of Litchfield v. Inhabitants of Farmington
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit, brought 'December nth, ] 826. The declaration comprised two counts : the first special, for the support of Asahel Moss and family, from the 20th of May 1825 to the 1st of July 1826; the second, general indebitatus assumpsit.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought 'December nth, ] 826. The declaration comprised two counts : the first special, for the support of Asahel Moss and family, from the 20th of May 1825 to the 1st of July 1826; the second, general indebitatus assumpsit. The cause was tried, on the general issue, at Litchfield, February term 1828, before Peters, J. Reuben Webster, a witness*introduced by the plaintiffs, •who, at the time the relief was furnished, was one of the selectmen of the town of Litchfield, testified, that on the 18th of June 1824, and within five days after the commencement of the…
1Opinion of the CourtDaggett, J.
The first ground stated for a new trial, is, that the testimony of George Cowles and others, selectmen of Farmington, that they had received no letter from R. Webster, during the year 1824, ought to have been admitted.
The 5th sect, of the statute providing for the support of paupers, {page 370.) declares it to be the duty of the selectmen of every town, wherein a person not an inhabitant of such town, residing therein, shall become poor and unable to support him or herself, to furnish necessary support; and if the pauper belongs to any other town, to give notice of his condition to such town…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Coit v. StarkweatherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1830
- Town of St. Johnsbury v. GoodenoughSupreme Court of Vermont · 1871
- Reichley v. Mellott, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Fulton County1929
- Scofield v. LounsburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1830