Lower Augusta Township v. Northumberland County

• Decision Date: 17 October 1860
• Citation: 37 Pa. 143
• Parties: Lower Augusta Township <I>versus</I> Northumberland County.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

37 Pa. 143

Lower Augusta Township versus Northumberland County.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 17, 1860.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northumberland county.

J. B. Packer, for plaintiff in error, cited the Act of the 14th of April, 1845, P. L. 441, and argued that the county was answerable for the support of Mrs. Savidge, by the clear requirements of the act. The 10th, 11th, and 12th sections of the act are not inconsistent with each other.

The 10th section embraces the cases in which a person charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment or death, is committed to the asylum. In all these cases, the expenses are to be borne by the county.

The 11th section applies to other cases, in which the offence charged is not punishable with imprisonment or death.

The 12th section refers to the commitment of paupers, and the townships are liable in the latter cases only.

There is no intimation in the Act of 1845, that the townships are liable to the counties for moneys thus paid by them; while

the supplementary Act of 1855, Pa. Laws 515, looks to the exclusive liability of the counties in such cases.

The Township of Franklin v. The Pa. S. Lunatic Asylum, 6 Casey 522, does not conflict with this view.

2. The action is for money paid without the knowledge of the defendant; there is therefore no implied promise to refund: Addison on Contracts 57; Exall v. Partridge, 8 Term. Rep. 306; Stokes v. Lewis, 1 T. Rep. 21; Bilbie v. Lumby, 2 East 469; Higgs v. Scott, 7 C. B. 66; Brisbane v. Dacres, 5 Taunton 143; Childs v. Morly, 8 T. Rep. 613; Mengas v. Oyster, 4 W. & S. 23; Mayor of Baltimore v. Hughs, 1 Gill & Johns. 497; Turner v. Egerton, Id. 497; 5 Cowan 603; 2 Stew. 500; Little v. Gibbs, 1 South. 213; 3 Johns. 434; 8 Johns. 436; Stephens v. Broadnax, 5 Ala. 258; Charlestown v. Hubbard, 9 N. Hamp. 195.

3. The judgment is too high: there is an evident error in the calculation.

J. W. Comly and C. Pleasants, for defendant in error.—1. The 11th section of the act on which this whole proceeding is based, imposes the burden of supporting insane persons, on the poor district certified as the legal settlement of the person committed. The certificate is required to be made by the court.

The spirit of the Act of January 13th 1836, was similar to this. It imposed this burden on the "county or place" to which the lunatic may be chargeable.

2. The second assignment of error is purely technical. The county was not a volunteer in paying this debt; for it was liable in the first instance.

The 10th section of the act declares that the expenses shall be paid to the asylum by the county, as did the commitment also. The county was therefore not an intermeddler.

3. As to the alleged error in the amount of the judgment, this court will permit an amendment to meet the justice of the case, but will not reverse: Miller v. Weeks, 10 Harris 89; Roop v. Roop, 11 Casey 59; Ward v. Ward, 11 Casey 59; Act of June 16th 1836.

The opinion of the court was delivered, October 17th 1860, by LOWRIE, C. J.

An insane woman was committed by the Court of Quarter Sessions to the State Lunatic Hospital, and in this action it was decided that the township of her residence was bound for her support there, and hence this writ of error.

As the record of that commitment appears before us in this case, it is very defective in not stating on what grounds she was committed to the hospital. She is found to be...