Perkins v. Warren

Citation247 A.2d 97
PartiesEverett PERKINS v. C. Rodney WARREN, Henry W. Black, Leroy F. Wood, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Ernest SCOTHORN, Irving Cumming, Keith Wiley, Third-Party Defendants.
Decision Date01 November 1968
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

Donald F. Fontaine, Portland, for plaintiff.

Charles E. Moreshead, Augusta, for defendant.

Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, MARDEN, DUFRESNE, and WEATHERBEE, JJ.

MARDEN, Justice.

On appeal.

Appellant has a settlement for purposes of public aid in the Town of Naples, the Overseers of the Poor of which Town have been made third party defendants. While residing in the Town of Baldwin, the Overseers of the Poor of which Town being defendants and third party plaintiffs, he alleges that the fell into distress within the meaning of the pauper statute and applied to the Town of Baldwin for aid in November of 1967. It does not appear that the Town responded.

On January 31, 1968 appellant filed his complaint for review of the lack of administrative action of the Overseers of the Town of Baldwin, under the provisions of Rule 81(c) M.R.C.P.

He applied for aid again on February 14, 1968, claiming that his need for food and shelter required $20.00 per week. On that date the Overseers of the Town of Baldwin gave him $20.00, together with a letter signed by them, in which they expressed on behalf of the Town a refusal to give assistance 'after the 14th day of February' and continuing:

'Our reasons are follows:

'That after the report of a medical examination, it is said that you are able to do light work, that you have not made sufficient effort to provide yourself with a job;

'Also that you own and operate an automobile which you seem to have money enough for a gas and repairs.

'In view of these things we find it difficult to believe that you are in need of pauper assistance.'

Following this, appellant filed on March 4, 1968 an amendment of his original complaint for review, which amendment attacked the Town's position as expressed in the letter. The complaint, as amended, seasonably was considered by a single Justice of the Superior Court, who dismissed it.

From such dismissal, complainant declares seven points of appeal, the gist of which is that he has a statutory right to relief, that his ownership of an automobile of little value as a mater of law is no bar to his eligibility for relief, and that the position of the defendant town is legally indefensible.

The third party defendants have taken...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Berry v. Daigle
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • July 12, 1974
    ...Me., 287 A.2d 430 (1972) (claims for injunctive, declaratory and Rule 80B relief sought against Banking Commission); cf. Perkins v. Warren, Me., 247 A.2d 97 (1968); Northeast Shoe Co. v. Industrial and Recreational Finance Approval Board, Me., 223 A.2d 423 (1966); Parsons v. Chasse, 159 Me.......
  • Help-U-Sell, Inc. v. Maine Real Estate Com'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • August 7, 1992
    ...the action is one seeking declaratory relief pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5953 (1980) and properly should be so designated. See Perkins v. Warren, 247 A.2d 97 (Me.1968); M.R.Civ.P. 1 (Rules shall be construed to secure just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.). See also 2 Fi......

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