People ex rel. Town of Blenheim v. Bd. of Sup'rs Schoharie Cnty.

• Decision Date: 03 June 1890
• Citation: 121 N.Y. 345,24 N.E. 830
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. TOWN OF BLENHEIM et al. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS SCHOHARIE COUNTY.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

121 N.Y. 345

24 N.E. 830

PEOPLE ex rel. TOWN OF BLENHEIM et al.

v.BOARD OF SUP'RS SCHOHARIE COUNTY.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 3, 1890.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, third department.

Amasa J. Parker and Thorne & Beekman, for appellants.

Hobert Krum, for respondent.

O'BRIEN, J.

The object of this proceeding was to prohibit the county of Schoharie, through its board of supervisors, from proceeding to levy and collect from certain towns of that county moneys which the county had paid, and, as is admitted, was bound to pay, in the first instance, for the support or assistance of certain persons residing or having a legal settlement in these towns. Several indigent insane persons, not paupers, have, from time to time since January 1, 1882, been sent to lunatic asylums, on the certificate of the county judge of that county, acting under the provisions of section 14, tit. 1, c. 446, Laws 1874, and have been supported there at the expense of that county, and such expense has been levied, from year to year, each year as it accrued, upon the taxable property of the county, as a debt of the county, without regard to the places of residence in the county of such indigent insane persons. In November, 1887, the board of supervisors passed resolutions under which they proceeded to take an account of such payments by the county, and to charge the several towns in which such indigent insane persons resided with the expenses so paid by the county during the six previous years, and to charge the five towns that are relators in this proceeding with certain large sums claimed to be due by them on account of the expenses of such indigent insane persons, who had settlements therein, and which had been paid by the county. The board was proceeding to levy these sums upon the several towns when it was restrained by a writ of prohibition, granted by the supreme court at special term upon a hearing. The order awarding the writ has been reversed by the general term.

The question involved is the legal liability of towns to refund to the county the expense paid for the support, in lunatic asylums, of indigent insane persons, not paupers, residents of the town. In the absence of express statutory provisions, there is no obligation or duty imposed upon towns to contribute to the support of persons residing within their limit. Whatever legal obligations they incur must be met by taxation, and the authority of a statute is necessary in all cases in order to impose a burden upon the taxable property within the corporate limits of these communities. People v. Board of Supervisors, 93 N. Y. 397. The distinction between town and county poor is preserved in the county of Schoharie, and hence the several towns are required by law to support paupers as defined and provided by statute. 1 Rev. St. c. 20, tit. 1, § 14, p. 614.

If the controversy in this case related only to the obligation of towns to support insane paupers, the question would be free from all doubt, as it is conceded that the statute has in terms imposed this obligation upon them. The expense incurred by the county in this case was not for the support of paupers chargeable to the town, but for the maintenance in lunatic asylums of an entirely different class of persons; namely, the indigent insane, who were not paupers, within the definition of such persons given in the statute. Unless it can be shown that a town is liable for the support of its insane, as well as its paupers, the contention of the county authorities in this case must fail. Pauper lunatics may be sent to such public or private asylum as the board of supervisors may, by standing order, direct, by the superintendent of the poor of the county. Laws 1874, c. 446, tit. 1, § 12. But when an indigent person, not a pauper, becomes insane, application may be made in his behalf to the county judge, and certain other judicial officers, whose duty it is to investigate the facts of the case both as to the question of indigence as well as that of insanity. If the judge certifies that the person has become insane within one year next prior to the granting of the order of admission, and that his estate is insufficient to support him and his family, or, if he has no family, himself, under the visitation of insanity, then such indigent insane person is to be received by the authorities of the asylum, and cared for till he recover, or for two years, and, if no recovery is had within that time, it is the duty of the superintendent of the asylum to notify the county judge of that fact. Sections 14, 15.

It will be seen by a careful examination of the statute that there is a clear and well-defined difference in the methods provided for the maintenance and care of pauper lunatics and that other class of persons called indigent insane persons, but not paupers. The policy of the state in regard to the latter class is well expressed by an eminent author in the following language: ‘The law of indigence, as distinct from pauperism, was first introduced among our lunacy statutes in 1842. Chapter 135, § 26. It was designed for the benefit of that laboring population which is only self-supporting while employed. * * * Hence, such persons are accorded a temporary support from the county for a specified time. * * * This support, being a county charge, cannot, as in the case of paupers, be cast upon any particular town in which such indigent lunatic may have had a residence.’ Ordr. Jud. Ins. 87. The liability of a town to refund to the county the expense paid for the support of such persons in an asylum was considered and decided in the case of People v. Supervisors of Genesee Co., 7 Hill, 171, approved in Supervisors v. Morgan, 4 Abb. Dec. 339; and it was there held that no such liability existed. That case arose under ...