Symmes Arlington Hospital, Inc. v. Town of Arlington

• Citation: 292 Mass. 162,197 N.E. 677
• Parties: SYMMES ARLINGTON HOSPITAL, Inc., v. TOWN OF ARLINGTON.
• Decision Date: 16 September 1935
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

292 Mass. 162

197 N.E. 677

SYMMES ARLINGTON HOSPITAL, Inc., v. TOWN OF ARLINGTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

September 16, 1935

Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Keating, Judge.

Actions of contract by the Symmes Arlington Hospital Incorporated, against the Town of Arlington. On report from the superior court, where verdicts were ordered for the plaintiff in the sums, respectively, of $289.40, $409.77, and $487.32.

Judgment in accordance with opinion.

Appellate court had power to vacate stipulation on report of case, to which plaintiff had assented, providing that, if direction of verdict for plaintiff was wrong, judgment should be entered for defendant, where such stipulation did not tend to doing of justice.

P. A Hendrick and A. S. Gerstein, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

J. P. Sullivan, of Boston, for defendant.

LUMMUS, Justice.

These are actions of contract by a hospital incorporated by St. 1902, c. 146, and located at Arlington, where it is the only hospital, to recover its admittedly reasonable charges for the care and treatment of three boys who at different times had been injured by accident and had been brought to the hospital, between January 8, 1927, and August 25, 1928, before St. 1928, c. 155, took effect. One was a resident of Arlington, was injured in Arlington, and was brought to the hospital by a police officer of Arlington. The second was a resident of Lexington, was injured in Lexington, and was brought to the hospital by his parents, residents of Lexington. The third was a resident of Lexington, was injured in Lexington, and was brought to the hospital by a resident of Arlington. In each case, on the day of the admission of the patient or the next day, a legal notice and request were sent to the overseers of the poor of Arlington, as required by G. L. c. 117, § 24, but neither the overseers nor the town made any provision for the patient. Each of the patients remained at the hospital for two months or more, under treatment. Subject to the exceptions of the defendant, the judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff in each case for the full amount of the declaration, and reported the cases to this court.

The material statute is G. L. c. 117, § 24, which provided that ‘ Every town shall be liable for any expense necessarily incurred for the relief of a pauper therein by any person not liable by law for his support,’ after notice and request and until other provision is made by the public authorities. There was notice and request, and no other provision was made. The plaintiff corporation was not a ‘ person * * * liable by law’ for the support of the boys in question. The relief was furnished ‘ therein,’ that is, within the defendant town. City Hospital of Quincy v. Inhabitants of Milton, 232 Mass. 273, 122 N.E. 274. A pauper is ‘ one residing or found in any town where he falls into distress, and stands in need of immediate relief.’ Shearer v. Inhabitants of Shelburne, 10 Cush. 3, 5, quoted in City Hospital of Quincy v. Milton, 232 Mass. 273, 275, 122 N.E. 274.G. L. c. 117, § 14.‘ A person may have property and yet fall into distress, and be in need of immediate relief, from inability to avail himself of it. On the other hand, a person may have no property, and yet, if he is supported by relatives or friends, would not be in need of immediate relief, within the meaning of the statute.’ Inhabitants of Templeton v. Inhabitants of Winchendon, 138 Mass. 109, 110, 111. The boys could be paupers, to whom the plaintiff had a right to furnish relief at the expense of the defendant town under the statute, if their injuries demanded immediate relief not otherwise available, even though their parents might prove to be financially responsible. City Hospital of Quincy v. Milton, 232 Mass. 273, 275, 122 N.E. 274. See, also, Underwood v. Inhabitants of Scituate, 7 Metc. 214. The plaintiff was entitled to act on appearances of need. Palmer v. Hampden, 182 Mass. 511, 515, 65 N.E. 817. The law does not contemplate that a person seriously injured or desperately...