Town of Sharon v. Town of Salisbury
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, for supplies furnished to a pauper. On the trial of the case to the jury, the principal question in issue was, whether Preston Caulkins,the pauper, had gained a settlement in Salisbury by commorancy.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for supplies furnished to a pauper. On the trial of the case to the jury, the principal question in issue was, whether Preston Caulkins,the pauper, had gained a settlement in Salisbury by commorancy. The plaintiffs offered to prove by one Hartwell, a former selectman of Sharon, that in 1856 the selectmen of Salisbury paid to him, for the benefit of Sharon, a bill amounting to $42, twelve dollars of which was for money expended by Sharon for the support of Caulkins, he then being a town charge. The defendants objected to this evidence, but the court admitted it. They thereupon…
1Opinion of the CourtStorrs, C. J.
It is very clear, according to one of the most familiar principles of evidence, and indeed it is not questioned, *117that if the town of Salisbury settled with and paid to the town of Sharon an account which embraced, among other charges, one against the former for the support of Caulkins as a pauper belonging to that town, such payment was an act in the nature of an implied admission that he was a legally settled inhabitant of that town, and that it was its duty to support him, and therefore evidence of that payment was in its nature receivable as such an admission. And if the selectmen of that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Town of Union v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1848
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bloomfield v. Charter Oak BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Paxton v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Connecticut Hospital for the Insane v. Town of BrookfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
- West v. Town of ErrolSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1877