Overseers of the Poor of Hamilton v. Overseers of the Poor of Eaton

New York Supreme Court

Overseers of the Poor of Hamilton v. Overseers of the Poor of Eaton

6 Cow. 658

DecidedFebruary 15, 1827

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Cow. 658 (Overseers of the Poor of Hamilton v. Overseers of the Poor of Eaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Overseers of the Poor of Hamilton v. Overseers of the Poor of Eaton, 6 Cow. 658 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1827).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

Woodworth, J.

The pauper was bound an apprentice to Fuller, one of the overseers of the poor of the town Hamilton; and served the full term. Maynard, the other overseer of that town, executed the indenture. Two justices were present and approved. Fuller never executed it. It was left in the possession of Maynard, who testified that it was regular; but could not be found on search. The parol evidence was admissible; but the binding was defective; the act, (1 R. L. 136,) declaring that the overseers of the poor, with the consent of any two justices, may bind out any child who is chargeable.

The binding, however, was not absolutely void; but voidable by the parties. It has had its effect between [659]*659them. Neither party has chosen to take advantage of the defect; and it cannot be done by a third person. The town has had the benefit of the service, and cannot object. (Burr. Set. Cas. No. 28, p. 91.) The same principle is recognized in Hudson v. Taghkanac, (13 John. 245.) There the mother bound the child, her husband being alive ; and it was held, that the town could not take advantage of the defect- (Owasco v. Oswegatchie, 5 Cowen,, 527, S. P.)

The cases in which it has been held that a settlement could not be gained under an indenture not stamped, were decided on the words of the statute, 5 W. & M. c. 21, which says the indenture shall not be given in evidence, or available in any court. (Burr. Set. Cas. 199.) The order of the general sessions must be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

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

Curia, per

Woodworth, J.

The pauper was bound an apprentice to Fuller, one of the overseers of the poor of the town Hamilton; and served the full term. Maynard, the other overseer of that town, executed the indenture. Two justices were present and approved. Fuller never executed it. It was left in the possession of Maynard, who testified that it was regular; but could not be found on search. The parol evidence was admissible; but the binding was defective; the act, (1 R. L. 136,) declaring that the overseers of the poor, with the consent of any two justices, may bind out any child who is chargeable.

The binding, however, was not absolutely void; but voidable by the parties. It has had its effect between [659]*659them. Neither party has chosen to take advantage of the defect; and it cannot be done by a third person. The town has had the benefit of the service, and cannot object. (Burr. Set. Cas. No. 28, p. 91.) The same principle is recognized in Hudson v. Taghkanac, (13 John. 245.) There the mother bound the child, her husband being alive ; and it was held, that the town could not take advantage of the defect- (Owasco v. Oswegatchie, 5 Cowen,, 527, S. P.)

The cases in which it has been held that a settlement could not be gained under an indenture not stamped, were decided on the words of the statute, 5 W. & M. c. 21, which says the indenture shall not be given in evidence, or available in any court. (Burr. Set. Cas. 199.) The order of the general sessions must be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Cow. 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overseers-of-the-poor-of-hamilton-v-overseers-of-the-poor-of-eaton-nysupct-1827.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack