Armstrong County v. Plumcreek Township Overseers

• Decision Date: 30 October 1893
• Docket Number: 143
• Parties: Armstrong County, Appellant, v. Plumcreek Township Overseers
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

27 A. 842

158 Pa. 92

Armstrong County, Appellant, v. Plumcreek Township Overseers

No. 143

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

October 30, 1893

Argued October 11, 1893

Appeal, No. 143, Oct. T., 1893, by plaintiff from order of C.P. Armstrong Co., Dec. T., 1882, No. 154, discharging rule against Plumcreek Township Overseers.

Rule on defendants to pay expense of support of lunatic.

The following facts appear by record: David Hall was found to be insane in Plumcreek township on Oct. 31, 1882, by a commission in lunacy, at No. 154, Dec. T., 1882, under the act of April 20, 1869, § 6, P.L. 78, and was committed to the Western Pennsylvania Hospital for the Insane at Dixmont, at the cost of Armstrong county. At the same time the court issued a "rule upon the Overseers of the Poor of Plumcreek Township to show cause why they should not pay the expenses and costs of this proceeding." The court fixed the costs at $20.

On Dec 4, 1882, the Overseers of the Poor of Plumcreek Township filed their answer to said rule as follows:

"The answer of the Overseers of the Poor of Plumcreek Township respectfully denies that the said township is in any manner liable for the costs of the proceeding in this case, as the said David Hall was not legally settled in the township of Plumcreek at the commencement of the proceeding, nor at any time for the last four years, but that his brother, who made the application for the proceeding in this case, is of sufficient ability to pay the costs and maintain the said David Hall, as also are his other brothers named Rancon Hall and Finley Hall; that the said David Hall at the time of his insanity was not a resident in the said township of Plumcreek."

The court made the following order: "May 4, 1885. Rule discharged without prejudice to county as to further proceedings against the township of last settlement when ascertained, per motion of Mr. Whitworth, attorney for county. By the Court."

On June 6, 1892, the county commissioners of Armstrong county presented their petition to the said court at No. 154, Dec term, 1882, setting forth that the said David Hall had been adjudged a lunatic and committed to the asylum; that the said county had expended $920.44 for his support, and that they were informed and believed that at the time of said commitment the last legal settlement or residence of the said David Hall was in the township of Plumcreek, Armstrong county, and asked for a rule on the overseers of the poor of said township. Thereupon the court granted the following rule, viz.: "And now, June 6, 1892, on presentation of within petition, prayer of the petitioners granted, and rule issued on the Overseers of the Poor of Plumcreek Township, to show cause why the last legal settlement or residence of said David Hall should not be certified to be in the township of Plumcreek and why the said township should not pay to Armstrong county $920.44, money expended for the support of said David Hall at the asylum. Answer under oath to be filed in ten days from service hereof denying facts herein, otherwise the same deemed admitted. By the Court."

On June 27, 1892, the overseers of said township filed the following answer: "They deny that the last place of legal residence or settlement of the said lunatic, David Hall, was in the township of Plumcreek, or that said township is in any manner liable for his support or to reimburse the said county.

"Your affiants would further say that on Oct. 31, 1882, a similar rule in the same case was granted on the Overseers of the Poor of Plumcreek Township and duly served and an answer filed denying the liability of said township for the support of said pauper, and that upon testimony taken and argument of said rule, it was thereon decided and determined that the last place of legal settlement of said David Hall was not in Plumcreek township, and said rule was discharged, and your affiants are informed and believe that said matter has been fully decided and determined by the court of common pleas of Armstrong county and cannot be again inquired into by your honorable court."

The court discharged the rule in an opinion in part as follows, by RAYBURN, P.J.:

"Plumcreek township is the poor district where David Hall became chargeable, and he having no place of legal settlement in Pennsylvania, this poor district is liable to the county of Armstrong for the money expended in maintaining him at the asylum, unless there is something else in this case that would free said township from this liability. . . .

["It is contended on the part of said township that by reason of the court having at the time of committing David Hall to the asylum entered a rule on the Overseers of the Poor of Plumcreek Township to show cause why they should not pay the expenses and costs of the lunacy proceedings, and this rule having been discharged after answer filed and testimony taken, this matter is res adjudicata, and the county cannot recover.

"The order made by the court in discharging said rule is: 'May 4, 1885. Rule discharged without prejudice to county as to further proceedings against the township of last settlement when ascertained.' Before the township could be made liable for the costs and expenses of the lunacy proceedings, it would have to be established that David Hall, the lunatic, had a settlement or residence in Plumcreek township at the time of his being committed; that was the vital question to be decided by the said rule to show cause. If a settlement or residence had been established in Plumcreek township, then the rule would have been made absolute, and the township would have been made liable. The rule, however, was discharged, and we conclude that the county failed to establish that the lunatic had had either a settlement or residence in Plumcreek township. What was this rule obtained for if it were not to fix the residence or settlement of David Hall in said township? And it was the duty of the county in support of their rule to take the evidence to show the fact of settlement or residence, if such facts existed, and not having done so, we are of the opinion that Plumcreek township cannot now be called upon to try this matter again. Persons, townships or municipalities cannot be called upon to make answer to claims which have been once in court and disposed of, where the claimant had every opportunity to produce them before the court in his case.

"In the case of Pennock, Adm'r, v. Kennedy, 153 Pa. 579, it was held 'that a judgment entered for want of an affidavit of defence and affirmed by the Supreme Court, on appeal, is conclusive of the matters that were actually considered and those that might have been considered if the defendant had exercised the vigilance the law requires of parties litigant in the preparation and trial of their cases.'

"The court made an order discharging the rule, this order remains unappealed from, and it is conclusive against the...