Falls & Smith v. Belknap

1 Johns. 486
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1806·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. That the witness was liable to be rated for the support of the poof of New-Windsor, was too remote and contingent an interest to render him incompetent. This point has been repeatedly ruled, and is now well settled, (King v. Prosser, 4 Term, 7.) 2. The expenditures for the support and maintenance of the child, which we are to presume were shown to be necessary and reasonable, were as obligatory on the defendant without, as with, an order from a justice. (Hays v. Bryant, 1 H. Black. 253.) The section of the a'ct, which requires the previous order of a justice, applies to the case only of a voluntary application for relief, by the pauper himself, and not to indigent and helpless children, or other persons incapable of making application to the magistrate. An order, therefore, was not necessary in this case. 3. The bond of the defendant necessarily implies, that the town of New-Windsor was properly chargeable with the support of the child, and the defendant having^ in pursuance of this bond, paid and indemnified the overseers of that to wn for one year, he is concluded, by his written obligation, and other acts, from contesting that point. And the town of PFetv-Windsor, at this late day, would "hardly be permitted to question its own responsibility against another town, and to which the acts of the defendant have contributed. Besides, the question of liability between these two towns, cannot be tried in this collateral way. It is sufficient in this suit, to show that New-Wind~ sor has, in fact,. been put to charge and expense for the maintenance of this child. 4. It is unnecessary here to decide, whether a putative father is, or is not, entitled to the custody of his bastard child.

Footnotes

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

Falls & Smith v. Belknap, 1 Johns. 486 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

1 Johns. 486 (Falls & Smith v. Belknap) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

George v. McGovern
53 N.W. 899 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1892)
Lefebre v. Utter
22 Wis. 189 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1867)
Wallace v. Mayor of New York
18 How. Pr. 169 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1859)
Wallace v. Mayor
9 Abb. Pr. 40 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1859)
Pack v. . the Mayor, C. of New-York
3 N.Y. 489 (New York Court of Appeals, 1850)
Starnes v. Quin
6 Ga. 84 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1849)
Reynolds v. Mynard
1 How. App. Cas. 620 (New York Court of Appeals, 1848)
Lessey v. President of Green Bay
1 Pin. 486 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1845)
Inhabitants of Perth Amboy v. Smith
19 N.J.L. 52 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1842)
Mayor of Tuskaloosa v. Wright
2 Port. 230 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1835)
City Council v. King
15 S.C.L. 487 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1828)
Schenck v. Corshen
1 N.J.L. 219 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1793)