Inhabitants of Granville v. Inhabitants of Southampton

• Decision Date: 05 January 1885
• Citation: 138 Mass. 256
• Parties: Inhabitants of Granville v. Inhabitants of Southampton
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

138 Mass. 256

Inhabitants of Granville v. Inhabitants of Southampton

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

January 5, 1885

Argued September 23, 1884.

Hampden.

Judgment on the finding.

D Hill, for the defendant.

H Fuller, for the plaintiff.

C. Allen & Colburn, JJ., absent. Holmes, J.

OPINION

Holmes, J.

This is an action to recover for aid furnished to one Pomeroy, his wife, and two minor children, whom the plaintiff alleges to have been paupers having a settlement in the defendant town. The case was tried without a jury, and the court found for the plaintiff, subject to the defendant's exception to the refusal to make certain rulings as requested.

1. The court refused to rule that, for any relief furnished by the plaintiff to Pomeroy and family prior to January 22, 1879, it is not entitled to recover, but did so rule as to Pomeroy personally. The defendant's argument goes on the ground that Pomeroy, being entitled to his support under the St. of 1878, c. 282, was not a pauper until that act was repealed, at the date mentioned, by the St. of 1879, c. 1. We cannot agree to this position, and still less to the conclusion drawn from it. The St. of 1878 provides relief for soldiers "who are poor and indigent and stand in need of relief," using substantially the same language that is used by the settlement laws to describe paupers. Gen. Sts. c. 69, § 1. Pub. Sts. c. 83, § 1. It provides for no others. It gives them the same reasonable relief or support that is given to paupers. Gen. Sts. c. 70, §§ 1, 2. Pub. Sts. c. 84, §§ 1, 2. In a word, it provides for paupers as such, although, in consideration of their having served in the army, it makes the provision more favorable, and, to spare their feelings, calls it further compensation for their service.

But even if, honoris causa, they were relieved of the title of paupers, we do not see why their right to have their personal necessities provided for should disentitle their families to relief. To maintain the ruling asked for, it would be necessary to argue that the relief provided by the St. of 1878, c. 282, was a compulsory substitute for that given by the poor laws, apart from any election on the soldier's part, not only as to the soldier himself, as to whom it seems to have been so ruled, but as to his family; in other words, that an act which, in terms at least, only provided what was necessary for the soldier in person was intended to make nugatory during his life the act creating military settlements, which was passed in the same year, and which is still in force. St. 1878, c. 190, § 1, cl. 10. Pub. Sts. c. 83, § 1, cl. 11.

2. The notices sent to the defendant both stated that "Amos B Pomeroy and family (wife and two children), whose legal settlement is in your town, but now residing in this town, being in needy circumstances," had applied for relief, &c. Pomeroy had four children, but only two were living with him. Where the other two were does not appear. The defendant asked a ruling that the notices were bad, at least as to the children. It has been said, in a case where it was held that the defect was waived, that "D. R. and his family" was not sufficient. Shutesbury v. Oxford, 16 Mass. 102. And it has been held that "E. S. and her three children" was bad, when there were four in fact. Walpole v. Hopkinton, 4 Pick. 358. On the other hand, it has been held that a notice like the last was good, where it was not shown or suggested that there were more than three. Lynn v. Newburyport, 5 Allen 545. Perhaps it would be enough to say that, in this case, it is not shown or suggested that there were more than two children "residing in this town." But we prefer to put our decision on the firmer ground, that, taking the words "Pomeroy and family" before the words "now residing," &c., after the words "wife and two children," and the joinder of wife and children in the latter phrase, and applying the notice as a whole to the facts, it sufficiently indicates that it refers to the two children who were living with their parents....