City of Boston v. Inhabitants of Acton

46 N.E. 111, 167 Mass. 579, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 400
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 25, 1897·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Lathrop, J.

This case turns on the question of the sufficiency of the notice sent by the overseers of the poor of the plaintiff to (he overseers of the poor of the defendant. The [581]*581name of the person to whom aid was furnished was stated to be Mary. Richardson, whereas her name then and for some time afterwards was Mary E. Powers. There is nothing in the agreed facts to show that she was known in the defendant town as Mary Richardson, or that the overseers of the poor had any seasonable knowledge who was meant by the notice sent. There was therefore no occasion for them to take any action in the matter. Pub. Sts. c. 84, §§ 28, 29. Lanesborough v. New Ashford, 5 Pick. 190. Walpole v. Hopkinton, 4 Pick. 358. Carver v. Taunton, 152 Mass. 484.

Judgment affirmed.

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

City of Boston v. Inhabitants of Acton, 46 N.E. 111, 167 Mass. 579, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 400 (Mass. 1897).

46 N.E. 111 (City of Boston v. Inhabitants of Acton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carey v. Planning Board of Revere
141 N.E.2d 895 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1957)
Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. City of Springfield
71 N.E.2d 593 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)