Inhabitants of Carver v. City of Taunton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Inhabitants of Carver v. City of Taunton

25 N.E. 965, 152 Mass. 484, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 99

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 25 N.E. 965 (Inhabitants of Carver v. City of Taunton) 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

Inhabitants of Carver v. City of Taunton, 25 N.E. 965, 152 Mass. 484, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 99 (Mass. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Knowlton, J.

In this case it is an admitted fact, that, at the times when the notices were sent, Adeline Shurtleff had the care and charge of her five minor children, who were all living in Carver. Each of the notices described the paupers, whom the overseers of the poor of the defendant city were asked to remove, as “ Adeline Shurtleff and three children,” without containing anything to indicate which three of the five were intended. This description was not sufficient to inform the defendant who the persons were whom it ought to remove, and to enable it to avoid mistake and a liability to a suit for the commission of a wrong. Walpole v. Hopkinton, 4 Pick. 358. Northfield v. Taunton, 4 Met. 433.

In Grranville v. Southampton, 138 Mass. 256, the description of the paupers was, “ Amos B. Pomeroy and family (wife and two children), . . . now residing in this town.” Pomeroy had four children, but only two were residing in his family, and it did not appear that the other two were residing in the town; and the notice was held sufficient. But the fact in the present case that all five of the children were living in Carver, and were in the charge of their mother, materially distinguishes it from the last, and also from Lynn v. Newburyport, 5 Allen, 545, in which it did not appear that there were any more children than the number stated in the notice.

According to the terms of the report, there must be

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Knowlton, J.

In this case it is an admitted fact, that, at the times when the notices were sent, Adeline Shurtleff had the care and charge of her five minor children, who were all living in Carver. Each of the notices described the paupers, whom the overseers of the poor of the defendant city were asked to remove, as “ Adeline Shurtleff and three children,” without containing anything to indicate which three of the five were intended. This description was not sufficient to inform the defendant who the persons were whom it ought to remove, and to enable it to avoid mistake and a liability to a suit for the commission of a wrong. Walpole v. Hopkinton, 4 Pick. 358. Northfield v. Taunton, 4 Met. 433.

In Grranville v. Southampton, 138 Mass. 256, the description of the paupers was, “ Amos B. Pomeroy and family (wife and two children), . . . now residing in this town.” Pomeroy had four children, but only two were residing in his family, and it did not appear that the other two were residing in the town; and the notice was held sufficient. But the fact in the present case that all five of the children were living in Carver, and were in the charge of their mother, materially distinguishes it from the last, and also from Lynn v. Newburyport, 5 Allen, 545, in which it did not appear that there were any more children than the number stated in the notice.

According to the terms of the report, there must be

Judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 N.E. 965, 152 Mass. 484, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inhabitants-of-carver-v-city-of-taunton-mass-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack