Town of Marshfield v. Town of Cabot

• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SLACK
• Citation: Town of Marshfield v. Town of Cabot, 107 Vt. 409, 180 A. 897 (Vt. 1935)
• Decision Date: 01 October 1935
• Parties: TOWN OF MARSHFIELD v. TOWN OF CABOT

180 A. 897

107 Vt. 409

TOWN OF MARSHFIELD v. TOWN OF CABOT

Supreme Court of Vermont

October 1, 1935

May Term, 1935.

Paupers---Evidence To Show Interruption of Running of Time To Acquire Pauper Residence by Payment by Town within Three-Year Period for Services Rendered by Doctor to Pauper's Minor Daughter---Duty of Overseer of Poor To Furnish Aid to Poor Person in Need of Assistance---Evidence That Overseers of Plaintiff and Defendant Towns Consulted as Harmless Where Nothing Appeared as to What Was Said---Determination of Overseer of Town as to Person's Need of Assistance as Not Conclusive on Another Town Sought To Be Charged with Such Expenses---Rule as to When Town May Furnish Person Relief and Recover from Town of Such Person's Pauper Residence Though He May Have Had Some Property---Testimony Admissible on Question of Need of Assistance---Harmless Error---Testimony by Overseers as to Knowledge of Pauper's Financial Status---Testimony by Tax Collector as to Pauper's Lack of Property---Exception to Denial of Defendant's Motion for Judgment as Waived by Proceeding with Trial---Insufficiency of Offer To Warrant Admission of Testimony---Settlement with Pauper by Selectmen of Town for Injury to Pauper's Minor Daughter through Erroneous Belief as to Liability as Not Affecting Town's Liability for Doctor's Bill for Services Rendered Such Daughter Which Had Previously Been Incurred by Overseer---Insufficiency of Evidence To Justify Finding Requested as to Service Rendered by Doctor to Pauper's Daughter Having Been Sought and Engaged by School Authorities---Requested Finding Based on Evidence Which Had Been Excluded---Sufficiency of Evidence To Support Finding as to Doctor's Refusal to Give Surgical Attention to Pauper's Daughter until Overseer Became Holden for Doctor's Reasonable Charges---Sufficiency of Evidence To Show that Person Was in Poor and Destitute Circumstances at Time Minor Daughter Was Injured and Required Surgical Attention---Harmless Error---Presumptions in Support of Judgment---Sufficiency of Findings and Justifiable Inferences Therefrom To Support Judgment.

1. In action by one town against another to recover money expended for burial of pauper's wife, where pauper and family had resided in plaintiff town more than three years prior to time aid had been given for which suit was brought, during which period neither he nor any member of his family had requested public aid or assistance, evidence that during such time doctor had been paid by plaintiff town for services rendered to pauper's daughter when injured by accident requiring amputation of one of her fingers, held admissible as bearing on question whether residence acquired by father of pauper in plaintiff town under pauper statutes had been interrupted thereby, evidence being sufficient to show that doctor's services were rendered under such circumstances as to make plaintiff liable therefor.

2. In such action, where it appeared that minor girl, who injured her finger while playing in school yard, was taken by her teacher to a doctor who found immediate amputation necessary but by reason of his knowledge as to father's ability to pay was unwilling to proceed with operation and care for case unless overseer of poor of plaintiff town would agree to pay therefor, and upon doctor telephoning such overseer latter had made such agreement, held that, evidence of doctor that he was paid for his services by town order drawn by plaintiff's overseer was admissible, since under circumstances of case in view of provisions of pauper statutes, overseer's duty to act was mandatory and ineludible when he received information, however conveyed that relief was required, though doctor's services were not authorized by her father or any member of his family, and no member of family had applied to such overseer for assistance.

3. In such action, admission of testimony by plaintiff's overseer that he consulted defendant's overseer regarding such injury, held harmless, since he was not allowed to tell what either had said.

4. Determination of overseer of poor of town furnishing relief to minor child that such person's condition at that time made proper cause for relief is not conclusive against another town in which such person's father had pauper residence, but need of assistance at such time as it was given is open question.

5. Rule that when town bona fide relieves person apparently a pauper and actually standing in need of relief, town in which such person has statutory residence, if given required notice, will be liable for expense although it may turn out that person relieved had some property, applies only when, in circumstances, property which such person has is not available for his immediate relief, or is manifestly disproportionate to his needs.

6. In action by one town against town wherein person aided had pauper residence, to recover money expended for burial of pauper's wife, testimony of doctor, as to location and condition of house where family lived, that it was poorly furnished, and that furniture there was very cheap and old, and that he saw nothing at house out of which his bill for services to pauper's daughter could be collected, held admissible, on issue of pauper's need of assistance at time such assistance was rendered.

7. In pauper cases, where person's need of assistance is subject of inquiry, evidence that tends to show surroundings or condition in which he lives, his property or lack thereof, its nature and condition, his income from whatever source, and ability and willingness of others to aid him, is admissible, its weight being for trier in circumstances disclosed.

8. In action by one town against another town wherein person aided had pauper residence, to recover money expended for burial of pauper's wife, testimony of doctor who, when pauper's minor daughter had met with an accident requiring amputation of her finger during first three years of pauper's residence in plaintiff town, had performed such operation only after assurances from plaintiff's overseer that plaintiff would pay him therefor, that he had sent pauper statements of his bill therefor, held harmless, where nothing further appeared concerning matter.

9. In such action, testimony of plaintiff's overseers that they knew of no property that pauper had to pay doctor's bill, that pauper had nothing and was having a hard time, held properly admitted.

10. In such action, testimony of tax collector of plaintiff town during all of time that pauper resided therein, to effect that on different occasions during such time before and after year in which pauper's daughter had met with accident requiring amputation of a finger and plaintiff's overseer had paid doctor for services in relation thereto, he had investigated to see what property pauper had and could not find that he had any, held admissible.

11. Exception to denial of defendant's motion for judgment at close of plaintiff's evidence was waived by proceeding with defense.

12. In action by one town against another town wherein person aided had pauper residence, to recover money expended for burial of pauper's wife, offer of evidence on question of pauper's financial condition to show that during year in which his wife died he continued to furnish board to a certain poor person, for which plaintiff town had previously paid him, after plaintiff's overseer refused to continue payments therefor, held properly excluded, in absence of offer to show how long such board was furnished after overseer's refusal to pay, and that board was furnished under circumstances that made town liable therefor.

13. In such action, where plaintiff relied on payment by it to doctor for amputation of finger of pauper's daughter, which had been injured while she was playing in school yard, to prevent pauper having acquired pauper residence in plaintiff town, held that refusal of court to comply with defendant's request for finding that $20 was paid by selectmen to pauper by treasurer's order for consideration of release to said town for suits, damages, losses, and costs by reason of such injuries to his daughter, was without error, since settlement by selectmen with him, through erroneous belief on their part as to town's liability for such injuries, could not affect town's liability for doctor's bill which overseer had previously incurred, and which was paid on his order.

14. In such action, evidence held insufficient to warrant requested finding that such doctor's services for pauper's daughter were sought and engaged by school authorities of plaintiff town because of apprehension on their part that they, or town, were legally liable for injuries sustained by child while using swing on school grounds.

15. In such action, held that court properly refused to find as requested that board was furnished by pauper to another town charge in year when wife of pauper died, which the then overseer of poor of plaintiff town refused to pay, where evidence offered to prove it had been excluded.

16. In such action, finding that doctor, at time pauper's daughter was brought to him with injury to finger necessitating amputation thereof, knowing girl's father and his ability to pay, refused to operate and take care of case until plaintiff's overseer had become holden for doctor's reasonable charges, held proper on evidence.

17. In such action, finding that when daughter of pauper was injured, he was poor and in destitute circumstances, held supported by evidence.

18. In such action, finding that there was no evidence to show how much, if any, of amount paid pauper by plaintiff town for boarding another pauper accrued or was due prior to June 6 1933, excepted to on ground that evidence showed it was all paid prior to January 31, 1933, if error,...