City of Auburn v. City of Lewiston
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On motions and exceptions. This was an action of assumpsit to recover for supplies furnished by the plaintiff to a pauper whose settlement was alleged to be in the defendant city. The defendant pleaded the general issue with a brief statement alleging, in substance, that the alleged pauper, at the time when the supplies were furnished him, was sick at the house of his parents who were of sufficient ability to support and maintain him, and were bound by law to do so.
Read the full summary
On motions and exceptions. This was an action of assumpsit to recover for supplies furnished by the plaintiff to a pauper whose settlement was alleged to be in the defendant city. The defendant pleaded the general issue with a brief statement alleging, in substance, that the alleged pauper, at the time when the supplies were furnished him, was sick at the house of his parents who were of sufficient ability to support and maintain him, and were bound by law to do so. The presiding justice ruled that the facts alleged in the brief statement, if proven, would be no defense, and so instructed the…
1Opinion of the CourtHaskell, J.
Action for pauper supplies. The pauper fell grievously sick at his father’s house, and the jury found that he was "destitute,” under appropriate instructions, to which no exception is taken. The only exception is to the ruling, in substance, that the ability of kindred, liable to contribute for the support of paupers under R. S., c. 24, § § 16, 17, 18, 19, cannot be set up as a defense, by the town where the pauper has his legal settlement, to a suit of the town that furnished the relief.
No authority is cited in support of the point taken in defense. Revised Statutes, c. 24, § 35, requires…
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of Purcell v. WadlingtonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Inhabitants of the Town of Etna v. Inhabitants of the Town of PlymouthSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1966