Inhabitants of Eden v. Inhabitants of Sw. Harbor

• Decision Date: 04 December 1911
• Citation: 81 A. 1003,108 Me. 489
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF EDEN v. INHABITANTS OF SOUTHWEST HARBOR.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

81 A. 1003

108 Me. 489

INHABITANTS OF EDEN

v. INHABITANTS OF SOUTHWEST HARBOR.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 4, 1911.

Agreed Statement from Supreme Judicial Court, Hancock County.

Action by the Inhabitants of Eden against the Inhabitants of Southwest Harbor. On an agreed statement of facts. Judgment for plaintiffs.

Action by the town of Eden against the town of Southwest Harbor to recover for supplies and services furnished certain persons infected with diphtheria, said persons having their settlement in the defendant town, though found in the plaintiff town when said supplies and services were furnished, brought under Rev. St. c. 18, $ 51. Writ dated March 8, 1911.

The declaration in the writ is as follows: "In a plea of the case, for that the said defendant at said Eden, to wit, Ellsworth, on the day of the purchase of this writ, being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $195.04, according to the account annexed, then and there in consideration thereof, promised the plaintiffs to pay them the same sum on demand:

Bar Harbor, Me., Dec. 12, 1910. Town of Southwest Harbor, To Town of Eden,

Dr.

To supplies and services furnished George Marshall and family as follows:

To medical services rendered by Dr. J H. Patten

$65 00

To medical services rendered by Dr. R. G Higgins

2 00

To services as undertaker and necessaries for funeral of child Eugene Mar shall, rendered and furnished by F. E. Sherman

61 43

To groceries

10 21

Services hauling water, ice, and supplies rendered by Ralph Brewer

13 20

Fumigating

10 00

To antitoxin

2 20

To team hire

10 00

To services as nurse rendered by Mrs. Susie J. Sullivan

21 00

$195 04

"Also in a plea of the case, for that on the 13th day of August, 1910, one George Marshall and his family, consisting of the following named persons, to wit: George Marshall, Villa A. Marshall, and Eugene Marshall—had their legal settlement in the defendant town, which said legal settlement in said defendant town has continued ever since, and on said 30th day of August at said Eden said George Marshall and his family had recently been and then were inflicted with diphtheria, a disease and sickness dangerous to the public health, and thereupon the local board of health of the town of Eden in which town said Marshall and his said family were then living provided for the safety of the inhabitants as they, the said board of health, thought best, by removing them to a separate house, viz., to the isolated hospital, so called, in the said town of Eden, said removal not being dangerous to their health, and by providing medicines, medical attendance, and necessaries to the amount of $195.04 as specified in the account annexed hereto, and neither the said George Marshall nor his said family, nor the parent or master of either, was or is able to repay said charge, of all of which said defendant town then and there bad notice, and said defendant town by virtue of the statute then and there became liable and promised the plaintiff to pay it said sum of $195.04 on demand."

When the action came on for trial, an agreed statement of facts was filed and the case reported to the law court for determination. .

The agreed statement of facts is as follows:

"On August 30, 1910, and ever since that date, Geo. Marshall and his family, said family consisting of said Geo. Marshall, his wife, Villa A. Marshall, and his child, Eugene Marshall, have had their legal settlement in the defendant town.

"On said date said Geo. Marshall and his family aforesaid were residing in the plaintiff town, and were and had recently been infected with diphtheria, a disease and sickness dangerous to the public health. On said August 30, 1910, and other days between said date and September 13, 1910, the local board of health of the plaintiff town, being the town where said Marshall and his family aforesaid then were, for the purpose of providing for the safety of the inhabitants, the said local board of health, thinking it best to do so, removed said Marshall and his family aforesaid to a separate house, to wit, to the isolated hospital, so called, in said plaintiff town, and on said August 30th and other days up to and including September 13, 1910, the plaintiff provided for said Marshall and his family aforesaid at said hospital nurses and other assistants and necessaries as set forth in the account annexed to the writ. The removal to the isolated hospital above referred to was done without great danger to the health of the persons removed. Neither said Geo. Marshall nor his family aforesaid, nor the parent or master of either, was or is able to pay said charges.

"On the 12th day of December, 1910, the secretary of the local board of health of the plaintiff town by order of said board wrote and mailed to chairman of the board of selectment of the defendant town a letter inclosing the bill in suit except the last item thereof, said letter being in the form following:

"'Bar Harbor, Me., Dec. 12, 1910. "'Chairman of Board of Selectmen, Southwest Harbor, Me.— "'Dear Sir: We are sending you bill for the George Marshall family. His boy having been sick and died with diphtheria. This is the actual money paid out and no cost of the board of health services added to it.

"'Hoping that you will send us your check not later than the 20th, as our books close January 1st, and we want these accounts all in if possible.

"'Yours very truly,

"'[Signed] J. Alden Morse,

"'Sec'y Board of Health.'

"This letter was received by chairman of the selectmen of the defendant town December 14, 1910, the items set forth in the account annexed, so far as the plaintiff town is entitled to recover, are suitable in character, and charges therefor are reasonable and proper, and, if the plaintiff is entitled to recover, it may recover the amounts specified in the writ. The writ and declaration shall be printed and form a part of the agreed statement.

"It is also agreed that the said defendant town duly filed its offer to be defaulted for the sum of $2.20 for the antitoxin charged in the account annexed, and that said offer was rejected."

Argued before WHITEHOUSE, C. J., and SPEAR, CORNISH, KING, BIRD, and HALEY, JJ.

Charles H. Wood and Deasy & Lynam, for plaintiffs.

George R. Fuller and Hale & Hamlin, for defendants.

CORNISH, J. August 30, 1910, the local board of health of Eden, the plaintiff town, quarantined one Marshall and his family as persons infected with a contagious disease, and provided for them "nurses and other assistants and necessaries." R. S. c. 18, § 51. Mr. Marshall and his family, though then commorant in Eden, had their pauper settlement in the defendant town, Southwest Harbor, and were unable to pay for the services and supplies thus furnished them. Accordingly, the town of Eden brought this action against the town of Southwest Harbor to recover for the expenses of such services and supplies under the statute (R. S. 1903, c. 18, § 51), which provides that the "nurses and other assistants and necessaries" furnished a quarantined person shall be "at his charge, or that of his parent or master, if able: otherwise at that of the town to which he belongs." It is conceded that the phrase "the town to which he belongs" is meant the town in which he had his pauper settlement. Kennebunk v. Alfred, 19 Me. 221; Hampden v. Newburgh, 67 Me. 370. It is further conceded that the plaintiff can recover for the items and amounts sued for if the right of action given by that statute was not taken away by the later statute of Pub. Laws 1909, c. 25.

The later statute does not in terms take away the right of action given by the earlier, and the repeal, if accomplished, must be by implication. But, to effect a repeal by implication, the later statute must be so broad in its scope and so clear and explicit in its terms as to show that it was intended to cover the whole subject-matter, and displace the prior statute, or the two must be so plainly repugnant and inconsistent that they cannot stand together. Goddard v. Boston, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 407; Smith v. Sullivan, 71 Me. 150; Staples v. Peabody, 83 Me. 207, 22 Atl. 113.

The court will, if possible, give effect to both statutes, and will not presume that the Legislature intended a repeal. Diver v. Keokuk Savings Bank, 126 Iowa, 691, 102 N. W. 542.

"As laws are...