Odegaard v. City of Albert Lea
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action to recover the value of services, support and care, rendered and furnished in attending and caring for a pauper who was a resident of defendant. Upon the trial in the district court for Freeborn county, before Farmer, J., the action was dismissed, for the reason, as stated by the court, that there was no obligation on the defendant to care for its poor. Plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Mitchell, J.1
The question here is whether the city of Albert Lea is required by law to care for its own poor. By the general law of the state the maintenance and relief of the poor is made a county charge. Gen. St. 1878, c. 15. But in 1875 a special act was passed making paupers a town charge in Freeborn county. Sp. Laws 1875, c. 74. This act required each town in that county to take care of and bear the expense of its own poor in the same way and manner, so far as applicable, as was provided for counties taking care of the poor, and made the township boards of supervisors supervisors of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Flinn v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
- Board of Commissioners of Public Charities & Correction v. McGurrinNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1876
3Cited by7 opinions
- City of Mankato v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
- Klauber v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Tucker v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Mayor of Smithville v. Dispensary CommissionersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Klauber v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.