People ex rel. French v. Lyke

Decision Date02 May 1899
Citation53 N.E. 802,159 N.Y. 149
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. FRENCH v. LYKE.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Third department.

Petition by the people, on the relation of John B. French, overseer of the poor of the city of Ithaca, for writ of mandate to James S. Lyke, as superintendent of the poor of Tompkins county, directing defendant to draw a warrant on the county treasurer in payment of a claim for the support of a poor person. From an order directing the issuance of a peremptory writ, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

David M. Dean, for appellant.

Jared T. Newman, for respondent.

O'BRIEN, J.

The only question in this case is with respect to the settlement of certain poor persons, in order to determine whether the expense incurred in extending public aid for their support is chargeable to the city of Ithaca or to the county of Tompkins. It appears that Mrs. Mary Giles and her three children are poor persons, and that the expense of their support is, in whole or in part, a public charge. The children are under 16 years of age, and, although they actually reside in Ithaca, they have, since April 11, 1893, to October, 1897, been regarded and accepted by the county superintendent of the poor as chargeable to the county. They have never been supported by the town or city. During the whole period mentioned they were cared for by the relator as overseer of the poor of the city, but under the direction of the defendant, the overseer of the poor of the county, and the bills incurred for public aid were presented semiannually by the relator to the defendant, who in every case drew his warrant upon the county treasurer for the payment of the same, as required by law. After October 1, 1897, the relator continued to furnish relief to the family as before, and about April 1, 1898, the relator presented to the defendant a bill for the expenses necessarily incurred for payment as before, but payment was refused, on the ground that the law had been so changed that the four persons named became a charge on the city, and the county was relieved from all further obligation to pay for their support. There is no controversy in regard to the amount of the claim, or with respect to the propriety of the relief given, or touching the duty of the defendant to draw his warrant upon the county treasurer for payment of the same, unless his contention be correct that the law has been so changed with respect to the settlement of poor persons that henceforth the county is not liable for the payment of the claim.

For over 60 years the locality to which these poor persons were chargeable was determined by the following provision of the statute: ‘No residence of any person as a pauper, in the county poorhouse or place provided for the support of the poor, or in any town while supported at the expense of any other town or county, shall operate to give such pauper a settlement in the town where such actual residence may be had.’ 1 Rev. St. p. 621, § 30. It is plain that, under this provision, the poor persons in question could not acquire a settlement in Ithaca, since, during the whole period of their residence there, they were supported by the defendant as superintendent of the poor of the county. We think no substantial change of the law in this respect was intended or effected by the recent revision of the statute. The old statutes on the subject were repealed, and the settlement of poor persons must now be ascertained from sections 40, 41, art. 3, c. 225, Laws 1896, which read as follows: ‘Every person of full age, who shall be a resident and inhabitant of any town or city for one year, and the members of his family who shall...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Graboski v. Guiliani
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 4, 1996
    ...to be such, which was doubtless an inadvertence, should not be allowed to defeat the intention of the law"); People ex rel. French v. Lyke, 159 N.Y. 149, 152, 53 N.E. 802 (1899) (rejecting party's argument that wholly "rests upon the omission in the revision of the statute of this single wo......
  • Dougherty v. Trustees of Vill. of Horseheads
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 2, 1899
    ... ... before us a large stone took the place of curbing, in order to keep people from driving over the grass and against the tree. While it was an ... ...
  • People v. Graham
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 1982
    ...Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law). Nor do we deal here with a clerical or typographical error (e.g., People ex rel. French v. Lyke, 159 N.Y. 149, 53 N.E. 802 People ex rel. Fitch v. Lord, 9 App.Div. 458, 41 N.Y.S. 343 It would be a matter of reductio ad absurdum to equate the unconfus......
  • Branford House, Inc. v. Michetti
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 12, 1993
    ...mistake is due to inadvertence or clerical error (McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes § 362; see, People ex rel. French v. Lyke, 159 N.Y. 149, 152-153, 53 N.E. 802; McKee Land & Improvement Co. v. Williams, 63 App.Div. 553, 561, 71 N.Y.S. 1141, affd. 173 N.Y. 630, 66 N.E. 1112; M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT