City of Somerville v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 15 January 1917
• Citation: 225 Mass. 589,114 N.E. 825
• Parties: CITY OF SOMERVILLE v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

225 Mass. 589

114 N.E. 825

CITY OF SOMERVILLE

v.COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Jan. 15, 1917.

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Marcus Morton, Judge.

Petition by the City of Somerville against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to recover for aid furnished to paupers. On report to the Supreme Judicial Court after findings for defendant. Judgment entered for petitioner.

Frank W. Kaan, of Boston, for petitioner.

Henry C. Attwill, Atty. Gen., and H. Ware Barnum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

CROSBY, J.

This is a petition to recover for aid furnished under the provisions of R. L. c. 81, § 21, as amended by St. 1903, c. 355, § 1, and as further amended by St. 1912, c. 331, § 1, to the wife and minor children of Michael J. Burke. The case comes before this court on a report made by a judge of the Superior Court, who ruled that the aid furnished the wife and children did not prevent the acquiring of a settlement in Somerville by Michael J. Burke. The judge found that the wife and children acquired such settlement, and also found for the defendant.

It is recited in the report that:

‘The question to be determined is the settlement of the wife and children. If they derived a settlement in Somerville through Michael J. Burke, the petitioner is not entitled to recover. If they did not derive such settlement, the petitioner is entitled to recover.’

From the agreed statement of facts, it appears that:

‘Michael J. Burke, mentioned in the petition, moved with his wife and minor child to Somerville, September 14, 1908. Thereafter two other children were born. On September 14, 1908, said Burke had no settlement in this Commonwealth. He continued to live in Somerville thereafter, but because of his illness with tuberculosis which is a disease dangerous to the public health, he went to the Somerville Tuberculosis Camp, which is maintained by the City of Somerville, on April 10, 1913, and remained there until July 31, 1913. On the latter date said Burke went to the Rutland State Sanatorium for consumptives, in Rutland, Massachusetts, and remained there as an inmate until February 5, 1915, on which date he returned to the Somerville Tuberculosis Camp and remained there until April 3, 1915, on which date he returned to his home in Somerville and remained there until his death, June 12, 1915.

‘Said Burke was assessed poll taxes in Somerville for the years 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913, and paid said taxes for all of said years except 1913. He was not assessed any other taxes of any sort whatsoever in any of said years.

‘His wife, Nora Burke, and their minor children applied to the Poor Department of the City of Somerville for aid, which was given them first on April 14, 1913, and thereafter from time to time as set forth in the account annexed to the petition. The sums of money charged in said account for said aid are reasonable. The overseers of the poor in furnishing said aid considered it for the public interest and gave immediate notice in writing thereof to the State Board of Charity. A detailed statement of the expenses sought to be recovered herein was duly rendered to said State Board of Charity, but it refused to approve and never has approved the same. Payment thereof was duly demanded and payment was refused.’

From the foregoing recital, it would seem plain that Burke, having resided in Somerville for five consecutive years, and having paid all taxes assessed to him during four years of that time, acquired a settlement in that city, unless the aid furnished to his wife and children, above referred to, prevented him from acquiring such settlement. R. L. c. 80, § 1. It is equally plain that the aid furnished the wife and children in April 1913, and before Burke had resided in Somerville for five consecutive years, prevented his acquiring a settlement there, unless it was unaffected by reason of St. 1907, c. 386, § 2. Charlestown v. Groveland, 15 Gray, 15;Woodward v. Worcester, 15 Gray, 19, note; Taunton v. Middleborough, 12 Metc. 35.

It is the contention of the Commonwealth that by reason of the provisions of St. 1902, c. 213, § 2, as amended by St. 1907, c. 386, § 2, the furnishing of such aid did not affect or prevent the acquiring of such settlement. The statute in question is as follows:

‘No person for whose care and maintenance a city or town or the Commonwealth has incurred expense in consequence of smallpox, scarlet fever, diphtheria, tuberculosis, dog bite requiring anti-rabic treatment, or other disease dangerous to the public health shall be deemed to be a pauper by reason of such expenditure.’

[2] In providing for the isolation and treatment of persons afflicted with diseases dangerous to the public health, it was doubtless the primary purpose and intention of the Legislature to protect as far as possible the people at large, by furnishing scientific and skillful treatment and special care to prevent the spread of such diseases. It probably was believed that the removal of persons suffering from a disease described in the statute from their homes and their treatment elsewhere, would involve an expense which, in some cases, the persons so treated would be unable to pay. The statute in question was passed to prevent such persons so cared for and...