Renovo Overseer v. Half-Moon Overseers

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Renovo Overseer v. Half-Moon Overseers

78 Pa. 301, 1875 Pa. LEXIS 136

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 10, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 Pa. 301 (Renovo Overseer v. Half-Moon Overseers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Renovo Overseer v. Half-Moon Overseers, 78 Pa. 301, 1875 Pa. LEXIS 136 (Pa. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gordon

delivered the opinion of the court, May 10th 1875.

This case comes before us on a certiorari, hence we can review that only which appears on the face of the record.

An order of removal, unappealed from, is conclusive upon all [303]*303parties, and where, under such order, the pauper has been accepted, there can be no recovery against the accepting district for costs and charges: Directors of Schuylkill v. Directors of Montour, 8 Wright 484.

In the case in hand the overseers of Half-Moon had placed the pauper, a raving maniac, in the Lunatic Hospital at Harrisburg, and served the order of removal on the authorities of Renovo. There was no appeal from this order, but the pauper was not accepted. Under these circumstances it is quite' possible the plaintiff’s claim might have been sustained under the 22d sect, of the Act of June 13th 1836, vide Overseers of Sugarloaf v. Directors of Schuylkill, 8 Wright 481. But, in order to bring the matter within this section, the petition should have set forth that a demand had been made upon the appellants for the expenses incurred in the maintenance of the pauper, and that there had been a neglect or refusal to pay. The petition being defective in this, no default appeared on the part of the overseer of Renovo, hence the court had no jurisdiction of the case.

The decree of the Court of Quarter Sessions is therefore reversed and set aside at the costs of the appellees.

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

Mr. Justice Gordon

delivered the opinion of the court, May 10th 1875.

This case comes before us on a certiorari, hence we can review that only which appears on the face of the record.

An order of removal, unappealed from, is conclusive upon all [303]*303parties, and where, under such order, the pauper has been accepted, there can be no recovery against the accepting district for costs and charges: Directors of Schuylkill v. Directors of Montour, 8 Wright 484.

In the case in hand the overseers of Half-Moon had placed the pauper, a raving maniac, in the Lunatic Hospital at Harrisburg, and served the order of removal on the authorities of Renovo. There was no appeal from this order, but the pauper was not accepted. Under these circumstances it is quite' possible the plaintiff’s claim might have been sustained under the 22d sect, of the Act of June 13th 1836, vide Overseers of Sugarloaf v. Directors of Schuylkill, 8 Wright 481. But, in order to bring the matter within this section, the petition should have set forth that a demand had been made upon the appellants for the expenses incurred in the maintenance of the pauper, and that there had been a neglect or refusal to pay. The petition being defective in this, no default appeared on the part of the overseer of Renovo, hence the court had no jurisdiction of the case.

The decree of the Court of Quarter Sessions is therefore reversed and set aside at the costs of the appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 Pa. 301, 1875 Pa. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renovo-overseer-v-half-moon-overseers-pa-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack