St. Joseph's Hosp. of the Sisters of St. Francis v. Town of Withee

• Decision Date: 09 November 1932
• Citation: 209 Wis. 424,245 N.W. 128
• Parties: ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS v. TOWN OF WITHEE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

209 Wis. 424

245 N.W. 128

ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS

v.TOWN OF WITHEE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 9, 1932.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chippewa County; Dayton E. Cook, Judge.

Action by the St. Joseph's Hospital of the Sisters of St. Francis against the Town of Withee. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Reversed and remanded with directions.

In this action begun December 4, 1931, plaintiff seeks to recover an amount claimed to be due by reason of its furnishing hospital care and maintenance to an indigent resident of the town of Withee, Clark county, Wis. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered April 13, 1932, defendant appeals.H. G. Haight, of Neillsville, for appellant.

W. H. Stafford and Harold E. Stafford, both of Chippewa Falls, for respondent.

FAIRCHILD, J.

The indigent person had a lawful settlement in the town of Withee. In 1928 this person was placed in respondent's hospital by members of her family under a private arrangement and charges were paid out of her own funds until they were exhausted. This condition was reached prior to March 27, 1930, at which time there was an unpaid balance due respondent of $148.50. The situation of the indigent person and the respondent hospital at this time was presented to the authorities of the town of Withee, who, on behalf of the town, paid the amount then due and made an agreement for future care and maintenance, not, however, for any fixed period of time. The town continued to pay such charges up to and including March 26, 1931. At that time, according to the findings of the trial court, the town “refused to pay further charges for the hospital care and attention of said indigent, * * * and refused to support and maintain the plaintiff pursuant to the contract previously entered into * * *.” Reasons were assigned for this action of the town at the time, but these reasons do not affect the definiteness of the determination on the part of the town to be no longer bound to the respondent.

[1][2] No bill of exceptions was settled in this case, and in its absence the sole inquiry is as to whether or not the findings support the judgment. The liability of the town to the respondent in this case ended when the contract ended. If the person remained indigent the town sustained under the law a liability to provide her with care and maintenance, but it was not obliged to continue her at the...