City of Augusta v. Inhabitants of Chelsea

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

City of Augusta v. Inhabitants of Chelsea

47 Me. 367

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 1, 1860

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 47 Me. 367 (City of Augusta v. Inhabitants of Chelsea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Augusta v. Inhabitants of Chelsea, 47 Me. 367 (Me. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Davis, J.

The demand of the plaintiffs against the defendants is not disputed. The defendants, having a demand against the plaintiffs, which is also for the support of paupers, have filed it in set-off in this action.

No demand can be filed in set-off unless it is founded on a judgment, or an express or implied contract. The demand of the defendants in this case, according to the testimony, does not rest upon any special contract. They claim to recover on the ground that they bring themselves within the statute provisions. Such a demand, for the support or relief of paupers, is not founded upon a contract. The liability originates solely in positive provisions of statute, and has in it none of the elements of a contract, express or implied.

According to the agreement of the parties, the accoünt iis set-off is to be withdrawn, and the defendants are to be defaulted, to be heard in damages before the clerk.

Tenney, C. J.., and Bice, Cutting, May, and Gooden' JJ., concurred.

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

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Davis, J.

The demand of the plaintiffs against the defendants is not disputed. The defendants, having a demand against the plaintiffs, which is also for the support of paupers, have filed it in set-off in this action.

No demand can be filed in set-off unless it is founded on a judgment, or an express or implied contract. The demand of the defendants in this case, according to the testimony, does not rest upon any special contract. They claim to recover on the ground that they bring themselves within the statute provisions. Such a demand, for the support or relief of paupers, is not founded upon a contract. The liability originates solely in positive provisions of statute, and has in it none of the elements of a contract, express or implied.

According to the agreement of the parties, the accoünt iis set-off is to be withdrawn, and the defendants are to be defaulted, to be heard in damages before the clerk.

Tenney, C. J.., and Bice, Cutting, May, and Gooden' JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Me. 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-augusta-v-inhabitants-of-chelsea-me-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack