Hamilton Cnty. v. Hollis

• Decision Date: 09 March 1909
• Citation: 119 N.W. 978,141 Iowa 477
• Parties: HAMILTON COUNTY v. HOLLIS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

141 Iowa 477

119 N.W. 978

HAMILTON COUNTY

v.HOLLIS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 9, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Hamilton County; W. D. Evans, Judge.

Action for money expended in the care of defendant's parents. Verdict was returned in favor of Fred Hollis by the direction of court and against Frank Hollis on submission to the jury. Judgment was entered thereon, and Frank Hollis appeals. Affirmed.D. C. Chase and Wesley Martin, for appellant.

A. N. Boeye and J. M. Blake, for appellee.

LADD, J.

This is an action by the county against defendants for money expended in the maintenance of their father and mother at the poor farm. The parents had lived in a small house with two lots in Homer, and had been receiving $4 per month from the county for several years. They were about 80 and 78 years of age, respectively, both feeble and childish, and able to do little. They were taken to the poor farm September 20, 1903, and remained there until June 14, 1906, when the woman died. He left the following day. The evidence tended to show that the expense of their maintenance and care was from $1.75 to $3.50 per week. Several errors are assigned, but only those touched in the brief or argument will be considered.

1. The petition alleged that Hollis and wife were furnished food, clothing, and medicines and medical attendance at the expense of the county during 140 weeks at $3.50 per week, aggregating $980, “which plaintiff, Hamilton county, expended for their use and benefit.” To this petition was attached an account “for board, washing, care, medical attendance, and medicine” for that time at the same price each per week. Appellant argues that in view of this account the action should be treated as for these items, rather than for the money expended therefor by the county. As the account is made a part of the petition, it should be regarded merely as making more specific its averments. From both it clearly appeared that the action was for the amount expended for the items mentioned, rather than for their reasonable value.

2. Appellant urges, however, that the county cannot recover save for money actually expended and directly paid out for the relief or support of the poor. The statute under which this action was brought reads: “Any county having expended any money for the relief or support of a poor person, under the provisions of this chapter, may recover the same from any of his kindred mentioned herein, from such poor person should he become able, or from his estate; from relatives by action brought within two years from the payment of such expenses, from such poor person by action brought within two years after becoming able, and from such person's estate by filing the claim as provided by law.” Section 2222, Code. Among the kindred made liable by this section in connection with section 2216 of the Code are the children. These statutes ought not to be given the narrow construction contended for. “The relief may be either in the form of food, rent or clothing, fuel and lights, medical attendance or in money.” Section 2230, Code. It is the money expended in furnishing such support or relief which may be recovered under the section quoted. If it has been expended by the county for the relief or support at the poor farm, or elsewhere, it is as plainly within the language of the statute as though paid directly to the indigent person. Nor does the provision that the inmates be required to perform work suitable to their bodily condition militate against this interpretation, though this may have some bearing in ascertaining the amount the county has expended in their behalf, a point not necessary to be considered at this time.

3. As several persons usually are maintained at the poor farm, some difficulty may be experienced in ascertaining the portion expended for the support of each person. This...