People ex rel. May v. Maynard

• Decision Date: 24 October 1899
• Citation: 55 N.E. 9,160 N.Y. 453
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. MAY v. MAYNARD et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

160 N.Y. 453

55 N.E. 9

PEOPLE ex rel. MAY

v.MAYNARD et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 24, 1899.

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Fourth department.

Appeal from an order of the appellate division of the supreme court (59 N. Y. Supp. 419) dismissing a writ of certiorari and proceedings thereon, applied for on the relation of Jonah May, overseer of the poor of the city of Little Falls, to review the determination of Frank L. Maynard, superintendent of the poor of the county of Herkimer, disallowing in part the application of said Jonah May to have the expense of furnishing relief to certain poor persons made a charge on the town of Newport. Appeal dismissed.

S. H. Newberry and J. D. Beckwith, for appellant.

Charles L. Fellows, for respondent town of Newport.

George H. Bunce, for respondent superintendent of poor of county of herkimer.

VANN, J.

For more than one year immediately preceding July 1, 1896, John Sweet, a person of full age, resided, with his wife and five infant children, in the town of Newport, county of Herkimer, and supported himself and family without aid from the public. In July, 1896, they removed to the city of Little Falls, in the same county, where they have resided ever since. In November, 1896, said Sweet, in behalf of himself and his family as poor persons, applied for relief to the overseer of the poor of the city of Little Falls, who, within 10 days thereafter, gave written notice to the overseer of the poor of the town of Newport requiring him to provide for them as required by law. Said notice was not complied with, and, as no contest was made by the overseer of the poor of the town of Newport over the question of settlement, as authorized by statute, the overseer of the poor of the city of Little Falls maintained said poor persons at the expense of said city until the 11th of November, 1898. The bill for maintenance thus incurred was paid by the town of Newport until the 7th of April, 1898, but payment was refused for any relief furnished after that date. Thereupon the overseer of the poor of the city of Little Falls applied to the superintendent of the poor of the county for an allowance of the rejected portion of the bill, and, after a hearing as provided by law, the superintendent decided that said poor persons had lost their settlement in the town of Newport, and had gained a settlement in the city of Little Falls by their continuous residence in the latter place for one year. He approved of the portion of the bill incurred prior to the 7th of April, 1898, and rejected the remainder upon the ground that the town of Newport was not liable therefor, because the law had been changed by chapter 203 of the Laws of 1897. There is but one superintendent of the poor in the county of Herkimer, and the distinction between town and county poor exists in that county. A writ of certiorari was issued to review the determination of the superintendent, and the appellate division, after hearing counsel for the city of Little Falls, the county of Herkimer, and the town of Newport, which had been duly made a party to the proceeding, ordered that said writ and the proceedings thereon be dismissed, without costs. The order entered contained these words: ‘Opinion by Nash, J. All concur.’ An examination of the opinion of the learned appellate division shows that it held that said poor persons, ‘by their residence for one year in Little Falls, lost their settlement in Newport’; that ‘they did not, however, gain a settlement in Little Falls,’ and that they had become a charge upon the county. The relator appealed to this court.

The poor law passed in 1896 is a comprehensive statute relating to the support of poor persons by the state and the counties, cities, and towns of the state, and is a consolidation and revision of the various statutes relating to the subject that previously existed. Laws 1896, c. 225. Article 3 of this statute relates to the ‘Settlement and Place of Relief of Poor Persons.’ Section 40, entitled ‘Settlements, How Gained,’ provides that ‘every person of full age, who shall be a resident and inhabitant of any town or city for one year, and the members of his family who shall not have gained a separate settlement, shall be deemed settled in such town or city, and shall so remain until he shall have gained a like settlement in some other town or city in this state, or shall remove from this state and remain therefrom one year.’ The next section provides, among other things, that ‘no residence of any such poor person in any almshouse, while such person, or any member of his or her family is supported or relieved at the expense of any other town, city, county or state, shall operate to give such poor person a settlement in the town where such actual residence may be.’ Section 41. People v. Lyke, 159 N. Y. 149, 53 N. E. 802. Section 42, after providing that ‘no person shall be removed as a poor person’ from one municipality to another, directs that, ‘if such poor person be in a county where the respective towns are liable to support their poor, and has gained a settlement in some town of the same county other than that in which he may then be, he shall be supported at the expense of the town or city where he may be, and the overseer shall, within ten days after the application for relief, give notice in writing to an overseer of the town to which he shall belong, requiring him to provide for the support and relief of...