City of Augusta v. City of Waterville

• Decision Date: 11 February 1910
• Citation: 106 Me. 394,76 A. 707
• Parties: CITY OF AUGUSTA v. CITY OF WATERVILLE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

76 A. 707

106 Me. 394

CITY OF AUGUSTA

v. CITY OF WATERVILLE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 11, 1910.

Report from Superior Court, Kennebec County.

Action by the City of Augusta against the City of Waterville. On report. Judgment of nonsuit.

Action of assumpsit by the plaintiff city against the defendant city to recover the sum of $54.10 expended by the plaintiff city for the relief of a pauper whose pauper settlement was alleged to be in the defendant city. When the action came on for trial, an agreed statement of facts was filed and the case reported to the law court for determination with the stipulation that, if judgment should be for the plaintiff, it should be for $54.10 and costs; otherwise plaintiff should become nonsuit.

Argued before EMERY, C. J., and PEABODY, SPEAR, CORNISH, KING, and BIRD, JJ.

Thomas Leigh, City Sol., for plaintiff.

Carroll N. Perkins, Oity Sol., for defendant.

PEABODY, J. This is an action authorized by statute brought by the city of Augusta against the city of Waterville to recover the amount expended by the overseers of the plaintiff city for the relief of a pauper alleged to have a settlement in the defendant city.

The case comes to this court for decision on the following agreed statement of facts and stipulations:

"State of Maine. "Kennebec—ss. Superior Court.

"City of Augusta v. City of Waterville. "Agreed Statement of Facts.

"The account sued for in this case, amounting to $54.10, was for pauper supplies furnish by the city of Augusta to one Peter Vigue, and said supplies were received by the said Peter Vigue with full knowledge on his part that they were furnished as such. It is further agreed that these supplies were necessary and reasonable. It is also agreed that proper notice was given to the city of Waterville and denial made by city of Waterville, as required by statute.

"Peter Vigue is an alien, born in Canada, never having been naturalized. He lived in Canada until after he became of age. Later he moved to Waterville and for ten consecutive years next prior to January 1, 1907, made Waterville his home. During this time he received no pauper supplies. In May, 1909, he fell in distress in Augusta and received the supplies sued for.

"If on these facts judgment should be for the plaintiff, it shall be for $54.10 and costs, otherwise plaintiff shall become nonsuit. "City of Augusta,

"By Thos. Leigh, Oity Solicitor. "City of Waterville,

"By Carroll N. Perkins,

"City Solicitor."

The decision of the case depends upon the legal construction of chapter 142 of the Public Laws of 1905, approved March 23, 1905, which is as follows:

"Section 1. The Revised Statutes shall not be construed to make any town liable for relief furnished to an alien or his family since said statutes went into effect, but relief furnished any such person shall be within the provisions of section thirty-three of chapter twenty-seven."

The Revised Statutes referred to is chapter 27, § 1. Paragraph 6 of this section is essentially the same as the following provision in chapter 122 of the Laws of 1821, relating to the relief of the poor and pauper settlements:

"Any person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall hereafter reside in any town within this state for the space of five years together, and shall not during that time receive directly or indirectly, any supplies or support as a pauper from any town, shall thereby gain a settlement in such town."

The statute of 1821 repealed all former laws "made enacting and ascertaining what shall constitute a legal settlement of any person, in any town within this state, so as to subject and oblige such town to support such person, in case of his becoming poor and standing in need of relief, so far as they relate to the manner of gaining a settlement in future."

It was construed by the court in the case of Knox v. Waldoborough, 3 Me. 455, to embrace aliens as well as citizens, and the doctrine of that case was reaffirmed in Calais v. Marshfield, 30 Me. 511.

Before the statute of 1905 was enacted and went into effect, the alien pauper had gained a settlement in the city of Waterville, and the statute, though by its application to a section of the Revised Statutes referred to therein is for some purposes retrospective, cannot be construed as to deprive him of any benefits which he had previously acquired by such settlement. 2 Lewis' Sutherland, Statutory Construction, §§ 641, 642. But...