Lander County v. Humboldt County

• Decision Date: 25 April 1893
• Docket Number: 1877.
• Citation: 32 P. 849,21 Nev. 415
• Parties: LANDER COUNTY v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

32 P. 849

21 Nev. 415

LANDER COUNTY v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY.

No. 1877.

Supreme Court of Nevada

April 25, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The liability of a county for the relief and support of its indigent poor is purely statutory, and, to render one county liable for such relief granted by another county to one of the former's indigent residents, the case must come fairly within the statute.

2. There are none of the elements of a contract, express or implied, in a demand for the relief or support of the poor. The liability exists only in pursuance of the positive provisions of the statute.

3. A county in this state is only liable for relief furnished by another county to one of its indigent residents where such indigent is a pauper.

4. A laboring man, who has always been able to make a living, and who, until his last sickness, has never had occasion to ask or receive charity, is not a pauper, although without money or property with which to pay the expense of that sickness.

Appeal from district court, Elko county; George F. Talbot, Judge.

Action by Lander county against Humboldt county to recover for expenses incurred in caring for an alleged pauper resident in Humboldt county. There was judgment in favor of defendant and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

D. S Truman, for appellant.

M. S Bonnifield, for respondent.

BIGELOW J.

Action by the plaintiff county to recover from the defendant county expenses claimed to have been incurred in the care and treatment of a pauper resident of the latter county. In sections 1981-1991. Gen. St., the legislature seems to have had in mind two classes of indigent persons who might be entitled to county aid-First, paupers, in which class it was apparently the intention to include poor persons who are unable to earn a livelihood in consequence of bodily infirmity, idiocy, lunacy, or other cause, and whose disability is likely to be more or less permanent; and secondly, those mentioned in section 1986 as nonresidents, or other persons not coming within the definition of "paupers," who may fall sick in any county in this state, not having money or property with which to pay for their necessary board, nursing, or medical aid. Section 1988 provides that, for relief furnished to a pauper who is a resident of another county, the relieving county may, under certain circumstances, recover from the county of which the pauper was a resident, but no provision is made for a recovery for relief furnished the class mentioned in section 1986. Then, for this kind of relief, no recovery can be had, for the liability of a county for the relief and support of its indigent poor is purely statutory, and to render the county liable the case must come fairly within the terms of the statute. Hamlin Co. v. Clark Co., (S. D.) 45 N.W. 329; Cooledge v. Mahaska Co., 24 Iowa, 211; Mitchell v. Inhabitants of Cornville, 12 Mass. 333; Miller v. Inhabitants of Somerset, 14 Mass. 396. There are none of the elements of an implied contract in such a case. The liability exists only in pursuance of the positive provisions of the statute. City of Augusta v. Chelsea, 47 Me. 367; Hamlin Co. v. Clark Co., supra. The whole matter is entirely within the control of the legislature, and the duty of aiding and supporting poor people, or of relieving those temporarily in need of assistance. may be imposed by that body upon counties or town in such manner as it may deem proper.

The district court found that the indigent on whose account this claim is made was not a pauper. The appellant assigns as error that this finding is not supported by the evidence. The facts proven were that he was a man without a...