Cherokee County v. Smith

• Decision Date: 08 January 1935
• Docket Number: 42635.
• Citation: 258 N.W. 182,219 Iowa 490
• Parties: CHEROKEE COUNTY v. SMITH et ux.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

258 N.W. 182

219 Iowa 490

CHEROKEE COUNTY v. SMITH et ux.

No. 42635.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

January 8, 1935

Appeal from District Court, Cherokee County; O. S. Thomas, Judge.

Action by plaintiff, Cherokee County, to recover from defendants the amount of money expended by the county in support of the son of the defendants and his family. From a directed verdict and judgment thereon in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Reversed.

Whitney, Whitney & Stern, of Storm Lake, for appellants.

McCulla & McCulla, of Cherokee, for appellee.

DONEGAN, Justice.

In December, 1932, one Mr. Rasmus, who was the owner of a house in Cherokee in which one Bert Smith and family lived reported to Mr. McDonald, the chairman of the board of supervisors of Cherokee county, that Bert Smith was unable to pay the rent, and that unless the rent was paid he (Rasmus) would proceed to oust Smith from his premises. Mr. McDonald told Mrs. Garner, who was the overseer of the poor, and directed her to investigate the case. A claim for the rent which became due after the request was made to the board, and also for medical services rendered the Bert Smith family, was O. K.'d by Mrs. Garner and paid by the board. In October, 1933, Cherokee county commenced this action against Wiliam H. Smith and Mrs. William H. Smith, the parents of Bert Smith, to recover the money thus expended for the support of their son and family. Defendants filed answer admitting that they were the father and mother of Bert Smith, but denied all the other allegations of the petition. Trial was had to a jury, and at the close of plaintiff's evidence the defendants moved for a directed verdict in their favor, which was overruled. Defendants thereupon rested and renewed the motion, which was again overruled. Plaintiffs thereupon filed a motion for a directed verdict in their favor in the sum of $55, which was sustained. A verdict was returned by the jury as directed, and judgment entered thereon. The defendants appeal.

I. One of the grounds relied upon by appellants for reversal is that no application for aid was made to the board of trustees by Bert Smith, or by anybody in his behalf. Section 5328 of the Code of 1931 provides: " * * * The poor must make application for relief to the trustees of the township where they may be, and, if the trustees are satisfied that the applicant is in such a state of want as requires relief at the public expense, they may afford such relief, subject to the approval of the board of supervisors, as the necessities of the person require, and shall report the case forthwith to the board of supervisors, who may continue or deny relief, as they find cause."

It is admitted that no application was made to the board of trustees in this case. However, the appellee contends that no such application was necessary, because application was made to the overseer of the poor in compliance with section 5321, of the Code, which is as follows: " * * * The board of supervisors in any county in the state may appoint an overseer of the poor for any part, or all of the county, who shall have within said county, or any part thereof, all the powers and duties conferred by this chapter on the township trustees."

It appears from the evidence that the owner of the house in which Bert Smith was living told the chairman of the board of supervisors that, unless the rent was paid, Smith would have to get out. The chairman of the board of supervisors reported this to Mrs. Garner, the overseer of the poor, and told her to investigate the case, and she O. K.'d the bills for rent that accrued after the request had been made. It is not explicitly stated in the evidence that the overseer of the poor made any particular investigation at the time she was told of the landlord's demand for the rent. We think, however, that sufficient does appear in the evidence to indicate that she was familiar with the condition of Bert Smith and family, and that her approval of the claims was made pursuant to this knowledge. There is no claim made here that Bert Smith was not a poor person within the provisions of the statute, and the objection made is based upon the purely technical ground that the application was not made in the first instance to the board of trustees. In view of the fact that section 5321 confers upon the overseer of the poor " all the powers and duties conferred by this chapter on the township trustees," and the further fact that the matter was referred to the overseer of the poor and the claims were not paid until O. K.'d by her, we think there was a sufficient compliance with the statutes to warrant the board of supervisors in paying the claims. The whole chapter in reference to the support of the poor was enacted for a humane purpose, and we do not think it was the intention of the Legislature that the poor should be allowed to suffer because some technical mode of procedure was followed. In any event, the board of supervisors has the power to waive the approval of township trustees or overseer of the poor, and, having paid these claims with full knowledge of the facts, such payment cannot now be questioned on the ground that no application was made to the township trustees. Armstrong v. Tama County, 34 Iowa, 309; Collins v. Lucas County, 50 Iowa, 448; Bradley & Sherman v. Delaware County, 57 Iowa, 552, 10 N.W. 898; Bremer County v. Schroeder, 200 Iowa, 1285, 206 N.W. 303.

II. Appellants further contend that the court erred in sustaining appellee's motion for a directed verdict in its favor, because there was no evidence that Bert Smith was a poor person within the meaning of the statute. Section 5297, of the Code of 1931, is as follows: " * * * The words ‘ poor’ and ‘ poor person’ as used in this chapter shall be construed to mean those who have no property, exempt or otherwise, and are unable, because of physical or mental disabilities, to earn a living by labor; but this section shall not be construed to forbid aid to needy persons who have some means, when the board shall be of opinion that the same will be conducive to their welfare and the best interests of the public."

It must be admitted that there is no direct evidence in the record showing that Bert Smith had no property and was unable, because of physical or mental disabilities, to earn a living by labor. There is evidence, however, that after the request was made to the chairman of the board of supervisors, he referred it to Mrs. Garner, the overseer of the poor, and told her to investigate it, that she had knowledge of the condition of the Smith family and approved the claims presented for their relief, and that the bills were paid because the board of supervisors " thought it was to the best interests of the general public to pay the rent as long as he (Smith) had a family and it was in the winter time." There is here no claim that the overseer of the poor or the board of supervisors acted fraudulently, or that Bert Smith was not, in fact, a " poor person" as defined by the statute. The presumption is that the officers charged with the duty of furnishing relief to the poor performed that duty. As stated in Hardin County v. Wright County, 67 Iowa, 127, loc. cit. 130, 24 N.W. 754, 756:" The duty of township trustees, when applied to for poor relief, is not to be determined by very rigid rules. They must, in the exercise of a wise discretion, grant relief where they judge that humanity requires it. They must, too, oftentimes act promptly and without taking time to make an extensive examination of the applicant's circumstances. Where they act in good faith or without abuse of discretion, their action, in our opinion, is not subject to review."

Under the facts and circumstances appearing in the evidence, and under the provision of section 5297, which states, " but this section shall not be construed to forbid aid to needy persons who have some means, when the board shall be of opinion that the same will be conducive to their welfare and the best interests of the public," we think there was a sufficient showing that Bert Smith was a poor person within the...