H. S. Peabody v. Town of Holland

• Decision Date: 07 May 1935
• Citation: 178 A. 888,107 Vt. 237
• Parties: H. S. PEABODY v. TOWN OF HOLLAND
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

178 A. 888

107 Vt. 237

H. S. PEABODY v. TOWN OF HOLLAND

Supreme Court of Vermont

May 7, 1935

February Term, 1935.

Paupers---Sufficiency of Facts To Make Person Prima Facie "Poor Person in Need of Relief"---Right of Recovery by Person Aiding One Apparently Pauper in Need of Relief---P. L. 3923---Duty of Overseer To Relieve Poor Person in Need of Assistance as Not Dependent upon Financial Worthlessness of Such Person---Matters Determining Whether Person Is Entitled to Public Assistance---Jury Question---Necessity of Application for Public Relief and by Whom Made---Nature and Requisites of Application---Insufficiency of Facts To Show That Application for Relief Was Made---Insufficiency of Findings To Justify Judgment against Town for Physician Supplying Services to Injured Person---Pauper Liability as Purely Statutory.

1. Person having accidental fall from which he suffered fracture of sixth and seventh cervical vertebrae, so as to be in immediate need of care and medical attention, and who had no resources readily available at time of accident, or soon enough to do him any good, but only right as ex-service man to procure loans from government on bonus certificate and insurance policy, held prima facie a "poor person in need of assistance" within meaning of pauper laws.

2. Person who, bona fide, renders services to another apparently a pauper and actually standing in need of relief may, if in other respects his case is made out, recover therefor from town chargeable.

3. Under P. L. 3923, making it duty of overseer of poor to whom application is made to relieve a poor person in need of assistance, it is not essential to receipt of such aid that applicant be financially worthless, since term "assistance" implies that needy person may be able to bear some of expense of his own support.

4. Whether person is entitled to public assistance depends upon variety of circumstances, such as amount of property, if any, its availability, his ability to borrow existence and ability of his kinsfolk, and exigencies of his situation.

5. Whether person is entitled to public assistance is usually for jury to determine in light of all circumstances, under proper instructions from court.

6. In action by physician against town for services rendered injured person, question whether such person who had had accidental fall from which he suffered fracture of sixth and seventh cervical vertebrae, so as to be in immediate need of care and medical attention, and who had no resources readily available at time of accident, or soon enough to do him any good, but only right as ex-service man to procure loans from government on bonus certificate and insurance policy, was a "poor person in need of assistance," held for jury.

7. Application for public relief is essential under pauper laws but it does not matter who makes application.

8. While law is solicitous that poor persons shall be supplied with needed assistance, and that such assistance shall be rendered promptly, overseer of poor is not required to act with respect to poor person in need of assistance until he receives from some source what amounts to application for relief of such person.

9. No formal application for relief of poor person in need of assistance is required, nor need it be in writing, it being sufficient if what is said and done is intended as request for public aid and so understood by overseer of poor to whom it is communicated.

10. Where physican summoned to attend poor person severely injured, requiring immediate attention, and prima facie a poor person in need of assistance within meaning of pauper laws, attempted to get into communication with overseer of poor with intention of making town chargeable, and, such overseer being absent from home, left message with latter's wife to have overseer call him, and left it to injured person's employer to call overseer, and, as result of latter's call, overseer went to such employer's house and learned about accident and was told that injured person might need help, held that such facts were insufficient to show "application for relief" so as to enable physician to recover from town for services rendered injured person.

11. In action by physician against town for services rendered such injured person, held that finding that latter needed assistance and that doctor looked to town for his pay, was insufficient to warrant judgment for plaintiff, without affirmative finding that application for assistance for such injured person was made to overseer of poor.

12. There is no common-law liability in pauper matters, such liability being statutory only, hence where statute imposes no liability there is none.

ACTION OF CONTRACT by physician against town to recover for services rendered injured person, alleged to be poor person in need of assistance. Plea, general issue. Trial by Orleans municipal court, A. E. Bishop, Municipal Judge, presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the facts. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

E. A. Cook and Searles & Graves for the defendant.

Raymond L. Miles for the plaintiff.

Present: POWERS, C. J., MOULTON, THOMPSON, and SHERBURNE, JJ., and BUTTLES, Supr. J.

OPINION

POWERS

The plaintiff, a practicing physician and surgeon, seeks to recover by this action of contract, for professional services rendered to Joseph Archambault, an alleged poor person in need of such assistance. The complaint is in the form of general assumpsit, and the answer is a general denial. The trial below was by court in the Orleans municipal court. Upon facts found and filed, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted.

It is found that Archambault, who had lived with his wife in the defendant town for about two years, on July 28, 1931, while at work for George Musgrove, at Holland, fell from a load of hay, and suffered a fracture of the sixth and seventh cervical vertebrae. The plaintiff was called, found the injured man in a desperate condition, and removed him in an ambulance to the hospital at Newport. Before he left with the patient, the plaintiff inquired of the Archambaults if they could pay for the injured man's treatment and they replied that they could not. Some reference was made to his government insurance policy and adjusted compensation certificate. The plaintiff tried to get into communication with the overseer of the poor of the defendant town, but as the latter was not at home, a telephone message was left with his wife. The plaintiff was anxious to get his patient to the hospital and left it to Musgrove to call the overseer. As a result of Musgrove's call, the overseer called during the evening at Musgrove's house and learned about the accident. He made no promise, then or thereafter to pay the expenses of Archambault's accident. The charges on the books of the plaintiff were made to Archambault.

It is expressly found that "the Archambaults had no resources which were readily available for use at the time of the accident, and were poor persons in need of assistance."

This finding is excepted to on the ground that it is unwarranted because the uncontradicted evidence showed that Archambault, who was an ex-service man, had a "bonus" from the government of $ 1,551, on which he had borrowed $ 125, and on which he could borrow one-half of the balance, and because he had a government insurance policy for $ 10,000, payable to his wife, on which he could have obtained a loan. The evidence tended to show that it took about thirteen months to obtain the $ 125 loan, but that a loan on the policy might be obtained in about a...