City of Boston v. Inhabitants of Mt. Washington

• Decision Date: 27 February 1885
• Citation: City of Boston v. Inhabitants of Mt. Washington, 139 Mass. 15, 29 N.E. 60 (Mass. 1885)
• Parties: City of Boston v. Inhabitants of Mount Washington[1]
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

139 Mass. 15

29 N.E. 60

City of Boston v. Inhabitants of Mount Washington^[1]

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

February 27, 1885

Argued November 13, 1884

One Maurice Roach, a pauper, entered the naval service of the United States on April 9, 1861, at Boston, and was mustered in for three years as a coal-heaver on board the Minnesota and in May, 1864, he was honorably discharged. The secretary of war had appointed commissioners to ascertain what credits Massachusetts and its subdivisions were entitled to under St.U.S. July 4, 1864, § 8, which provides "that all persons in the naval service of the United States, who have entered said service during the present Rebellion, who have not been credited to the quota of any town *** by reason of their being in said service and not enrolled prior to February 24, 1864, shall be enrolled and credited to the quotas of the town *** in which they respectively reside." They instructed their clerks in making assignments to copy the rolls of the receiving ship, and credit only those who had joined the service after April 13, 1861, or the beginning of the war. The commissioners assigned to the different subdivisions of the state the men resident therein, and then the men to whom none of the subdivisions had proved a right, but who were entitled to be credited to the state at large. The pauper Roach was assigned to the defendant town, but it appeared that defendant acquired no knowledge of the assignment until 1878.

Suffolk.

Contract for expenses incurred in the support of Maurice Roach, a pauper, from December 8, 1881, to February 24, 1883. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, to this court, on appeal, upon agreed facts in substance as follows:

Maurice Roach was born in Kittery, in the State of Maine, and neither he nor his parents ever lived in the defendant town. On April 9, 1861, which was before the beginning of the Rebellion, he entered the naval service of the United States at Boston being there duly enlisted and mustered in for the term of three years as a coal-heaver on board the steamship Minnesota. He was honorably discharged from the service on May 11, 1864.

The act of Congress of July 4, 1864, § 8, relating to navy credits, provides as follows: "That all persons in the naval service of the United States who have entered said service during the present rebellion, who have not been credited to the quota of any town, district, ward, or State, by reason of their being in said service and not enrolled prior to February twenty-fourth, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, shall be enrolled and credited to the quotas of the town, ward, district, or State, in which they respectively reside, upon satisfactory proof of their residence made to the Secretary of War."

Commissioners were appointed by the Secretary of War to ascertain what credits the State of Massachusetts, and the different subdivisions of the State, were entitled to under the U.S. St. of July 4, 1864, § 8. The instructions of the commissioners, given to their clerks to guide them in making assignments of men under the above act, were to copy the rolls of the receiving ship, and to credit only those who had joined the service subsequently to April 13, 1861. After assigning to the different towns, districts, and wards, men resident therein, the commissioners distributed proportionately among said towns, districts, and wards, men to whom no town had proved a right, but who were nevertheless to be credited to the State at large.

In the above distribution, which was made in 1864, Roach was assigned as a part of the quota of the defendant town. The town had no knowledge of such assignment until the year 1878.

If Roach had a legal settlement in the defendant town at the time the expenses sued for in this action were...