Town of Jericho v. Town of Underhill

• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ROWELL
• Citation: Town of Jericho v. Town of Underhill, 24 A. 251, 64 Vt. 362 (Vt. 1892)
• Decision Date: 21 April 1892
• Parties: TOWN OF JERICHO v. TOWN OF UNDERHILL

24 A. 251

64 Vt. 362

TOWN OF JERICHO v. TOWN OF UNDERHILL

Supreme Court of Vermont

April 21, 1892

JANUARY TERM, 1892

Judgment reversed, judgment for the plaintiff, and cause remanded for the assessment of damages.

Taft J., being a taxpayer in Williston, did not sit.

M H. Alexander and Seneca Haselton, for the plaintiff.

OPINION

ROWELL

Five towns, of which Jericho and Essex are two associated under the name of the Union Poor Farm Association for the support of their poor; but whether they associated under the statute in such case made and provided does not appear, and is not material in the view we take of the case.

For the purposes of the association, the towns composing it have all along owned a farm and personal property as tenants in common, having an interest therein in unequal proportions, as specified in the constitution of the association, which provides that on disbandment and sale of the property, the proceeds shall be divided among the towns on the basis of their respective interests in the property. It also provides that if the expenses of running the association and supporting the poor are in excess of the receipts, the deficit shall be assessed upon and paid by the several towns annually in proportion to the number of weeks each town has had paupers supported by the association during the year; and that any surplus above expenses shall be divided among the towns on the basis of the capital stock owned by each in the association. The by-laws provide for the keeping of fair books of entry of all receipts and disbursements of the association, and for a report thereof to the several towns on or before the first day of March in each year, together with the names and number of paupers kept by the association, the towns they were from, and the number of weeks each town had paupers supported during the year.

For the year covering the time laid in the declaration, there was a deficit of $ 614.05, which was apportioned among the towns on the basis of 88 6-10 cents per week for each pauper; and after this suit was brought, but before it was tried before the justice, Jericho paid the association at that rate per week for keeping this pauper.

If Essex is interested in the event of this suit, it is because of being a member of said association and not otherwise. The plea alleges that Essex is thus interested because this pauper, during the time in question, was supported at said farm at the joint expense of the towns to the...