Town of Cohasset v. Town of Scituate

• Decision Date: 25 June 1941
• Parties: TOWN OF COHASSET v. TOWN OF SCITUATE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

309 Mass. 402

34 N.E.2d 699

TOWN OF COHASSET

v.TOWN OF SCITUATE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

June 25, 1941.

Action by the Town of Cohasset against the Town of Scituate, to recover an amount of money paid by plaintiff in providing reasonable and necessary relief to one Merritt and her family who had a settlement in defendant town. From an order of the Appellate Division dismissing the trial judge's report, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment in accordance with opinion.Appeal from Second District Court, Plymouth County; Geogan, Judge.

Argued before FIELD, C. J., and QUA, DOLAN, and COX, JJ.

W. S. Whiteman, of Boston, for plaintiff.

V. W. Marr, of Boston, for defendant.

COX, Justice.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the order of the Appellate Division for the Southern District dismissing the report of the trial judge, who denied certain requests for rulings of the plaintiff but found for it in the sum of $60. The plaintiff's claims is for $1,749.16, the amount admittedly paid by it in providing reasonable and necessary relief to one Merritt and her family who had a settlement in the defendant town.

The case was tried upon a statement of agreed facts, from which it appears that the said Merritt and her family, consisting of four minor children, moved to the plaintiff town on or about August 23, 1937, where they have continued to reside; that said family was ‘in needy circumstances and in need of relief,’ and applied therefor to the board of public welfare. On September 2, 1937, said board duly notified the defendant's board of public welfare that relief had been granted upon said application, and charged to the defendant; that said relief would be continued until the defendant removed the family, and requested its removal. The defendant's board acknowledged receipt of this notice and stated that no evidence was found that said family had a lawful settlement in the defendant town, and declined to remove it or to pay any expense for its support. The family remained in needy circumstances and in need of relief from September 2, 1937. Due demand was made for the amounts expended in furnishing relief, but nothing has been paid. Under the provisions of G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 116 and c. 117, ‘alone considered, for furnishing of ordinary welfard aid, the plaintiff town would be entitled to reimbursement for the amount’ claimed.

Prior to the date when the family removed to the plaintiff town, it had been receiving aid from the defendant, first under the ‘mother's aid’ law, see G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 118, and later under ‘aid to dependent children,’ see G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 118, as inserted by St.1936, c. 413, and St.1939, c. 248, and on August 11, 1937, the defendant's board wrote to the plaintiff's board that the said Merritt had been receiving aid to dependent children in Scituate, that she wished to move to Cohasset on September 1, and enclosed a copy of her ‘Application and First Interview for Aid to Dependent Children’ to the defendant dated January 18, 1937. On October 4, 1937, said Merritt signed an ‘A.D.C.’ law form (evidently referring to said c. 118, as amended), with ‘the Public welfare agent of the plaintiff.’ The plaintiff's board of public welfare refused to change the form of aid that was being rendered and continued to furnish ‘regular’ welfare aid and relief, which it had been rendering under ‘previous application for general welfare (dependent) aid of September 1, 1937.’ For aid furnished under the provisions of c. 118, as amended, the plaintiff would be obliged to assume ‘practically one-sixth of * * * [the] expense’ while for aid furnished under c. 117 it would bear no part of it. It was the contention of the defendant's board that the family should be aided under G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 118, as amended, while the plaintiff's board took the position that it rested in its discretion to determine the kind of aid that was to be furnished, that is, whether under said c. 117, or said c. 118, as amended.

The whole matter was in dispute between the boards of public welfare of the two towns until November 10, 1938, when the ‘State department of public welfare appeal board gave a hearing to the respective Boards as a result of repeated requests of the Scituate board upon the appeal by Mrs. Merritt dated June 3, 1938.’ Nothing more appears in the agreed facts as to this hearing other than that the defendant's board received the following letter, dated November 15, 1938: ‘At a meeting of the Board of Appeal for Aid to Dependent Children, held on November 10, 1938, it was voted to approve the appeal of Mrs. Dorothy Merritt for aid under this law.’ The letter was signed, ‘Board of Appeal for Aid to Dependent Children By: Frank W. Goodhue.’ In due course the plaintiff's board received notice of this vote. Under date of February 8, 1938, the chairman of the defendant's board wrote counsel for the plaintiff in reply to a letter inquiring as to the defendant's intention in the matter of reimbursement for welfare aid already furnished, and said, among other things, that ‘We do not question the settlement under Public Welfare and will pay your bill for such assistance. But we feel that Mrs. Merritt should be receiving Aid to Dependent Children.’ The amount of the judge's finding for the plaintiff represents the amounts expended by it for aid furnished in September, 1937.

G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 117, § 14, as inserted by St.1937, c. 113 (see St.1938, c. 275, and St.1939, c. 39) provides, so far as material, that boards of public welfare in their respective towns shall provide for the immediate comfort and relief of all persons residing or found therein, having lawful settlements in other towns, in distress and standing in need of immediate relief, until removed to the towns of their lawful settlements. The expense of such relief and of their removal may be recovered in contract against the town liable therefor. Although provisions pertaining to the care of a town's own poor are to be found as early as 1639 in Colonial Laws, the first statute relative to the care of strangers by towns is found in Province Laws (1701-2) c. 9. This last law appears to have been enacted for the purpose of protecting the health of the community, although it contained incidental provisions for expenses necessarily incurred.

By St.1793, c. 59, however, ‘An Act providing for the relief and support, employment and removal of the poor, and for repealing all former laws made for those purposes,’ overseers of the poor were charged with the duty of providing immediate comfort and relief for all persons residing, ‘or found therein, not belonging thereto, but having lawful settlement in other towns or districts, when they fall into distress, and stand in need of immediate relief,’ and until they shall be removed to the places of their lawful settlements. This statute also authorized defend them from injuries.' Penalties were provided for enticing children so bound out to ‘elope.’ Most of the provisions of said c. 59 were substantially reënacted in Rev.Sts. c. 46, §§ 1-26. The overseers of the poor were authorized thereby to bind out minor children of any poor person who became chargeable to their town as having a lawful settlement therein, or who was supported there in whole or in part at the charge of the State, and also other minor children who were poor and chargeable to the town ‘in the manner provided in the eightieth chapter.’ Section 22. By Rev.Sts. c. 80, the overseers were authorized to bind out children until certain ages, and ‘provision shall be made in the contract, for teaching such children to read, write and cypher, and for such other instruction, benefit and allowance, either within or at the end of the term, as the overseers may think reasonable.’ See St.1793, c. 59, § 4.

Without attempting to trace the provisions of law relative to the support of the poor and the care of children appearing in the General Statutes, Public Statutes and the Revised Laws, it is enough to say that, in general, they retained the provisions of said St.1793, c. 59, relative to the support of the poor and dealt progressively with the care of minors, their being placed in families or institutions, and being bound out. See Gen.Sts. c. 70, §§ 1-22, c. 111; Pub.Sts. c. 84; R.L. c. 81, c. 83, c. 155, § 4. But by St.1918, c. 257, § 402, the provisions of said R.L. c. 155, § 4, were repealed and the binding out of children was no longer authorized.

By St.1913, c. 763, ‘An Act to provide for suitably aiding mothers with dependent children’, the predecessor of G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 118, overseers of the poor were required, subject to the provisions of the act, to aid all mothers with dependent children under fourteen years of age, if they were fit to bring up their children, and the aid was required to be sufficient to enable the mothers to bring up the children properly in their own homes, ‘and such mothers and their children shall not be deemed to be paupers by reason of receiving aid as aforesid.’ Section 1. Other provisions required the overseers to determine the fitness of the mother and whether there were other possible means of support. The act applied to all mothers and their dependent children, whether or not they, or any of them, had a settlement in the Commonwealth, if they had resided here not less than three years. But no person could acquire a settlement or be in the process of acquiring one while receiving aid under the act. Section 4. The then State board of charity was given general supervision of the work done and the measures taken by the overseers of the poor, and the city or town rendering aid was to be reimbursed by the Commonwealth for one third of the amount expended. If the mother so aided had no settlement, the city or town was to be reimbursed for the total amount given, and if she had a lawful settlement in another city or town, two thirds of the amount for aid given was made recoverable in an action of contract against the city or...