Overseers of the Poor of Wallkill v. Overseers of the Poor of Mamakating

New York Supreme Court

Overseers of the Poor of Wallkill v. Overseers of the Poor of Mamakating

14 Johns. 87

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1817

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 14 Johns. 87 (Overseers of the Poor of Wallkill v. Overseers of the Poor of Mamakating) 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 Wallkill v. Overseers of the Poor of Mamakating, 14 Johns. 87 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1817).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an application to reverse the order of the court of sessions, in Orange, by which they reversed the order of two justices, removing certain paupers from Wallkill to Mamakating. The question is, whether the pauper had gained any settlement in Mamakating, by the payment of taxes. In 1810, lie was taxed and paid 10 cents. In 1811 he was assessed 48 cents, but did not pay it: the collector, however, paid it for him, but without his request. A settlement, by payment of taxes, is gained by being charged with, and paying, such taxes, for the space of two years. (1 N. R. L. 279.) There was, in this case, a payment of taxes for one year only. The payment by the collector was not at the request of the pauper, nor under circumstances that would have enabled the collector to maintain an action. It was a mere voluntary payment. If the pauper had property out of which the collector could have raised the tax, he should have resorted to it. It does not appear that the collector ever applied to him for the tax, and it never can be permitted to a collector, voluntarily to pay another man’s tax, without ever calling upon him for it, and then turn about and sue hirp.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an application to reverse the order of the court of sessions, in Orange, by which they reversed the order of two justices, removing certain paupers from Wallkill to Mamakating. The question is, whether the pauper had gained any settlement in Mamakating, by the payment of taxes. In 1810, lie was taxed and paid 10 cents. In 1811 he was assessed 48 cents, but did not pay it: the collector, however, paid it for him, but without his request. A settlement, by payment of taxes, is gained by being charged with, and paying, such taxes, for the space of two years. (1 N. R. L. 279.) There was, in this case, a payment of taxes for one year only. The payment by the collector was not at the request of the pauper, nor under circumstances that would have enabled the collector to maintain an action. It was a mere voluntary payment. If the pauper had property out of which the collector could have raised the tax, he should have resorted to it. It does not appear that the collector ever applied to him for the tax, and it never can be permitted to a collector, voluntarily to pay another man’s tax, without ever calling upon him for it, and then turn about and sue hirp.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Johns. 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overseers-of-the-poor-of-wallkill-v-overseers-of-the-poor-of-mamakating-nysupct-1817.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack