Inhabitants of Glenburn v. Inhabitants of Naples
| Decision Date | 10 January 1879 |
| Citation | 69 Me. 68 |
| Parties | INHABITANTS OF GLENBURN v. INHABITANTS OF NAPLES. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON REPORT.
ASSUMPSIT for pauper supplies.
W H. McCrillis, for the plaintiffs.
M M. Butler & C. F. Libby, for the defendants.
An action to recover the amount paid to the Insane Hospital for the commitment and support of Clarissa Pendexter from October 16, 1871, to May 31, 1873. It is conceded that if the said Clarissa had her legal settlement in the defendant town at the former date, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover otherwise not.
The alleged pauper has since 1847 been the wife of Oliver Pendexter, whose settlement was in Naples previous and up to April 29, 1859, when he with his wife removed to Glenburn where he has resided up to the present time without receiving any supplies as a pauper, unless a payment by Naples for a previous support of the wife at the hospital shall be deemed such.
In October, 1862, the wife became insane, " and in consequence of said insanity, the said Oliver fell into distress and stood in need of immediate relief and applied to the town for aid." The selectmen of Glenburn, on due proceedings had, immediately sent the wife to the insane hospital, where she remained until her discharge July 10, 1869. During this period Naples, upon notice from Glenburn, paid for her support, except what was paid by the state, and neither the wife nor husband received any other supplies from either town.
The sole question presented is whether the support thus rendered to the wife was such as would interrupt the husband's residence in Glenburn, so as to prevent his acquiring a settlement there.
The mere fact that he fell into distress and made application to the town for aid would not be sufficient; aid must be actually rendered; there must be supplies received as a pauper. R. S., c. 24, § 1, Rule 6, the rule being the same under the revision of 1857 and 1871. Hampden v. Bangor, 68 Me. 368.
Was the support thus rendered received as pauper supplies? The R. S. of 1857 answers this question in the negative. By c. 143, § 20, after providing in certain cases for the recovery of the expenses of a support in the hospital, of the town where the patient has his legal settlement, as if incurred for the ordinary expenses of any pauper, it is enacted that, " No insane person shall suffer any of the disabilities of pauperism, nor be hereafter deemed a pauper by reason of such support." Such support clearly refers to that provided for in the preceding part of the section, to be recovered of the town wherein the insane person has his legal settlement, and the provision is as distinct as language can make it, that such support so rendered shall not make a pauper of the person receiving it; or, in other words, it is not to be deemed supplies received as a pauper. Such appears to be the construction incidentally given to the statute in Jay v. Carthage, and Pittsfield v. Detroit, 53 Me. 128, 442.
It is clear that the wife could not be made a pauper by such support, and if she was not, her husband could not be through her, and his residence in Glenburn could not thereby be interrupted.
The argument of counsel seems to have assumed that, during the stay of the insane person in the hospital his residence is suspended. As the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Randolph v. City of Barre, 821
...of a settlement unless the town actually furnished pauper supplies by payment or upon the town's credit. In Inhabitants of Glenburn v. Inhabitants Naples, 69 Me. 68, it was said that distress and application for aid is not sufficient to prevent the acquiring of a settlement; aid must be act......
-
Bangor v. Inhabitants of Wiscasset
...the defendants. The most noticeable feature of the authority relied upon in the ingenious argument of the plaintiff's counsel, ( Glenburn v. Naples, 69 Me. 68,) is its entire dissimilarity to the case at bar. It does not depend upon nor involve the construction of the law of 1870, but was d......
-
Augusta v. Mercer
...they must have been furnished to relieve distress that was not occasioned "in consequence of an injury sustained in the service." Glenburn v. Naples, 69 Me. 68. The evidence authorized the jury to find that supplies furnished by the plaintiff city in May and June, 1880, were not to relieve ......
-
Inhabitants of Sebec v. Inhabitants of Dover
...aid was a disabled soldier, not a pauper. Stat. 1875, c. 21. This statute affects the towns as well as the person aided. Glenburn v. Naples, 69 Me. 68; see also, v. China, 50 Me. 518; and Milford v. Orono, Id. 529, where the principle contended for was recognized and applied to former statu......