Cargill v. Inhabitants of Wiscasset

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Cargill v. Inhabitants of Wiscasset

2 Mass. 547

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 15, 1807

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2 Mass. 547 (Cargill v. Inhabitants of Wiscasset) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cargill v. Inhabitants of Wiscasset, 2 Mass. 547 (Mass. 1807).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia.

The question submitted to the Court is whether, upon the facts stated, the plaintiff in this action can, by law, recover of the defendants the expense he incurred in the necessary relief of the pauper mentioned in the case, and in his writ. And we are all of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Our opinion results from the construction of the statute of February 26, 1794.

By the 9th and 13th sections of that statute, it is made the duty of the overseers of the poor, in every town, to provide for the immediate relief of any pauper residing or found within their town, not having a legal settlement there, whether the pauper is settled elsewhere, or have no settlement within the [ * 549 ] * state ; in the former case at the expense of the town where the pauper hath his settlement, and in the latter case at the expense of the commonwealth, if the pauper hath no relatives by law liable for his support.

But the latter part of the 13th section expressly provides that every town shall be holden to pay any expense which shall be necessarily incurred for the relief of any pauper by any inhabitant not liable by law for his support, after notice and request made to the overseers of the said town, and until provision be made by them. This provision is decisive of the question, and relates to paupers of every description, as well those who are prisoners in jail [493]*493as others. If this construction required any support, the case of Dagget vs. Inhabitants of Dedham is a direct authority.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Curia.

The question submitted to the Court is whether, upon the facts stated, the plaintiff in this action can, by law, recover of the defendants the expense he incurred in the necessary relief of the pauper mentioned in the case, and in his writ. And we are all of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Our opinion results from the construction of the statute of February 26, 1794.

By the 9th and 13th sections of that statute, it is made the duty of the overseers of the poor, in every town, to provide for the immediate relief of any pauper residing or found within their town, not having a legal settlement there, whether the pauper is settled elsewhere, or have no settlement within the [ * 549 ] * state ; in the former case at the expense of the town where the pauper hath his settlement, and in the latter case at the expense of the commonwealth, if the pauper hath no relatives by law liable for his support.

But the latter part of the 13th section expressly provides that every town shall be holden to pay any expense which shall be necessarily incurred for the relief of any pauper by any inhabitant not liable by law for his support, after notice and request made to the overseers of the said town, and until provision be made by them. This provision is decisive of the question, and relates to paupers of every description, as well those who are prisoners in jail [493]*493as others. If this construction required any support, the case of Dagget vs. Inhabitants of Dedham is a direct authority.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Mass. 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cargill-v-inhabitants-of-wiscasset-mass-1807.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack