Inhabitants of Freeman v. Dodge

• Decision Date: 07 April 1904
• Citation: 98 Me. 531,57 A. 884
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF FREEMAN v. DODGE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

57 A. 884

98 Me. 531

INHABITANTS OF FREEMAN

v. DODGE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 7, 1904.

(Official.)

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Franklin County.

Action by the Inhabitants of Freeman against Benjamin Dodge. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.

This was an action of assumpsit upon an alleged promise by the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff town for such judgment debt and damage and costs as the plaintiff town might incur in assuming the defense of an action by one Walker against the town of Strong for supplies furnished one Dorcas Dodge, the mother of the defendant, who had fallen into distress in the town of Strong. There was evidence tending to show the following facts:

The said pauper, Dorcas Dodge, had a pauper settlement in the town of Freeman, where she generally lived with her son, the defendant, when not visiting her other children. In the spring of 1901, while visiting her daughter in Strong, she fell into distress, and was supplied by one Walker, who called upon the town of Strong for reimbursement. At this time the defendant was absent in Massachusetts, but, hearing from his family that his mother had been thrown upon the town of Strong, wrote to one of the selectmen of the town of Freeman—Mr. Burbank —the following letter, dated May 6, 1901: "I just received word that my mother had been thrown on the town. If you will keep the expenses as low as possible, I will pay the bill. As soon as I get home I will see you." On arrival home he made an effort to have his mother removed from Strong to Freeman, but, objections being made by the Walkers, with whom she was staying, no removal was made. Walker brought an action against Strong, of which the overseers of the poor of Freeman assumed the defense, and the case was tried at the May term, 1902, and resulted in a judgment against Strong for the sum of $74.20 debt or damage and $36.11 costs of suit, which judgment the town of Freeman paid. The town of Freeman also paid for counsel fees and witnesses in the defense of the suit $89.03.

The town introduced evidence tending to show that in February, 1902, the defendant told one of the selectmen and overseers of the poor of the town of Freeman that, if they would go ahead and defend the suit of Walker v. Strong on account of his mother, he would pay all the bills and expenses. There was also evidence to the contrary.

The presiding justice instructed the jury that the promise contained in the letter, if any, was without consideration, and that in this action nothing could be recovered from the defendant, Dodge, for any sum actually paid for supplies furnished his mother. The presiding justice also instructed the jury that if the defendant, Dodge, requested one of the overseers of the poor to assume the defense of the action of Walker v. Strong, and promised to reimburse the town of Freeman for all costs and expenses incurred therein, and the overseers of the poor of Freeman did upon the strength of that request and promise defend the suit, then the town of Freeman could recover the amount of the costs in that suit, and also the expenses incurred by Freeman in defending the action; and he submitted to the jury the question whether or not the defendant made the request and promise in February, 1902, as alleged. Upon this issue the jury found for the defendant, and returned a general verdict of did not promise.

To the ruling that the plaintiff could not recover in this action, under the evidence, for the supplies furnished Dorcas, or what it paid Strong for those supplies, the plaintiff excepted.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, SAVAGE, POWERS, and PEABODY, JJ.

F. W. Butler, for plaintiff.

E. E. Richards, for defendant.

SAVAGE, J. Assumpsit upon an alleged promise by the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff town for such judgment debt and damage and costs as the plaintiff might incur in assuming the defense of an action brought by one Walker against the town of Strong for supplies furnished the mother of the defendant, who had fallen into distress in Strong, but whose pauper settlement was in the plaintiff town. Walker, who furnished the supplies, called upon the town of Strong for reimbursement. At this juncture the defendant, hearing that his mother had been thrown upon the town of Strong, wrote to one of the selectmen of Freeman the following letter: "I just received word that my mother had been thrown on the town. If you will keep the expenses as low as possible, I will pay the bill. As soon as I get home I will see you." Walker brought an action for the supplies furnished against Strong. Freeman assumed the defense. The case was tried, resulting in a judgment against Strong, which judgment Freeman paid. Freeman now claims to recover of the defendant the amount of that judgment.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant told one of the selectmen and overseers of the poor of the plaintiff town that, "if they would go ahead and defend the suit of Walker v. Strong on account of his mother, he would pay all the bills and expenses." This was denied by the defendant Upon this issue the jury found for the defendant.

The plaintiff also relied upon the promise contained in the abovementioned letter. But the presiding justice instructed the jury that the promise contained in the letter, if any, was without consideration, and that in this action nothing could be recovered from the defendant for any sum actually paid for the supplies furnished his mother; and the correctness of this ruling is the only question presented by the exceptions.

It should be noticed that while the plaintiff, in argument, claims that a portion of the supplies were furnished after the letter from the defendant was written and received, the bill of exceptions does not disclose that fact, if it be a fact. We cannot travel out of the case, but must take the bill of exceptions as it reads. The bill states that "in the spring of 1901, while visiting her daughter in Strong, the defendant's mother fell into distress, and was supplied by one Walker, who called upon the town of Strong for reimbursement." The bill then details the writing of...