Case ID: mass_21/html/0372-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Same versus Same.
    Where a pauper, after an action brought by one town against another to recover expenses incurred in his support, continues chargeable to the plaintiffs, to sustain an action for the new expenses, brought pending the first, a new notice is required.
    Where a notice to overseers was delivered to, and received by one of them, while attending his duties as a member of the legislature, at a distance from his town, the delivery was held sufficient.
    A notice that “ E. S. and her three children” have become chargeable, she having four, was held to be too general as to tbe children, but sufficient as to E. S.
    This was an action, commenced before the preceding case was determined, to recover expenses incurred in the further support of the same paupers.
    On a case stated it was agreed, that the settlement of the paupers was in Hopkinton ; that in September 1823, previously to the commencement of the former suit, a written notice from the overseers of the poor of Walpole was delivered to the overseers of the poor of Hopkinton, stating that Eliza Snell and her four children were chargeable to Walpole, and that their settlement was in Hopkinton, and that at the same time the overseers of Walpole stated verbally the several ages of the four children, who were all minors ; and that the overseers of Hopkinton, in October following, returned an answer denying the settlement of Henry Snell to be in that town. ana stating that the settlement of Asa Snell, from which Henry’s was derived, was in Barre.
    Nov. 3d.
    It was further agreed, that during the pendency of the former suit, a letter from the overseers in Walpole was delivered to one Valentine, at the state-house in Boston, he being then a member of the house of representatives and attending the sessions of the house, and also being then one of the overseers of the poor of Hopkinton ; that Valentine did not open the letter, but lost or mislaid it, and it was never answered ; and that the letter was as follows, — ££ Eliza Snell and her three children, whose legal settlement is in your town, and for whose former support and the charges for the burial of Henry Snell her husband an action is now pending against you, &c., are still on expense. These are to request you to order their removal, &c., and pay the expense which we have incurred,” &c.
    If on these facts the plaintiffs were entitled to recover for the support of the paupers or either of them, damages were to be assessed by a jury ; otherwise they were to become nonsuit.
    Fiske, for the plaintiffs.
    As the defendants, on receiving the first notice, denied the settlement of the paupers to be in Hopkinton, and neither removed them nor paid the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs, and expenses continued to be incurred after the first action was brought, a new notice was not necessary, if the'first was good. Sidney v. Augusta, 12 Mass. R. 316. Supposing it however to have been bad, the defect was waived. Paris v. Hiram, 12 Mass. R. 267; Embden v. Augusta, ibid. 307; Shutesbury v. Oxford, 16 Mass. R. 102.
    Admitting that a new notice is required, it will be objected that here the second notice does not specify the names and ages of the children ; but since it states their number, it is sufficient, for the defendants would know from it what provision to make for their removal. If it is however too indefinite by itself, it is made certain by the reference to the 'armer action. Shelburne v. Rochester, 1 Pick. 470, and Tawney v. Crowther, 3 Bro. C. C. 318, there cited. Before that action was brought, the overseers in Hopkinton were informed of the ages of the children, and that they were all minors. t
    
    
      March term, 1827, in Suffolk.
    
    
      Metcalf, contra,
    
    cited Hallowell v. Harwich, 14 Mass. R. 188, as showing that a new notice was required to sustain this action ; and he contended that the delivery of the letter to Valentine when attending to his duties as a representative, thirty miles from his home, was not notice. But the letter had in view two objects, one to obtain payment of the expenses incurred, the other to effect a removal of the paupers, and for the last purpose it was not sufficiently particular, Shutesbury v. Oxford, 16 Mass. R. 102; Andover v. Canton, 13 Mass. R. 555; Anon. 2 Salk. 482, pl. 35; Johnson’s case, ibid. 485; Flixton v. Royston, Foley, 324; S. C. Sess. Cas. 10; Beaton v. Scisson, 1 Str. 114; 3 Burn’s Justice (16th ed.) 569, Poor, Removal; Shirley v. Watertown, 3 Mass. R. 322; Ringmere v. Petworth, Sess. Cas. 41. Suppose that the overseers in Hopkinton had ordered a person to remove E. Snell and her three children, (St. 1793, c. 59, § 10, 11, 12,) how could he ascertain which three to take ? In Shelburne v. Rochester, where a second letter was written to correct an error in the first, the two constituted only one notice; but here the plaintiffs wish to couple two distinct notices ; which cannot be done.
    
      Richardson, in reply. The English cases cited, of orders of removal, do not apply here, for an order of removal is a final process, and besides, in England, mina-s may acquire a settlement in their own right. This notice is materially different from one using the expression “ A. B. and his family,” for in such case the overseers would not know about whom to make inquiries, and the family might not have the settlement of A. B.
   Parker C. J.

It was decided in the case of Hallowell v. Harwich, that in a suit for maintaining a pauper, a notice given to the overseers of the defendant town previously to the commencement of a former suit between the same parties for supporting the same pauper, could not be recurred to as sufficient to support the second action ; but that every new cause of action must be prosecuted according to the requisitions of the statute, without the aid of the notice given previously to the former suit.* And the reason is, that towns shall have the privilege of removing the pauper instead of incurring the expense of a suit, and they may not know, without notice, that the pauper has continued at the expense of the plaintiff town.

The same reasons exist with equal force, where the former suit was still pending at the commencement of the second suit; which was the case in regard to the action now before us.

We must then consider whether the notice attempted to be given was sufficient. We think the delivery of the letter containing the notice, to Valentine, one of the overseers, was sufficient, if the. notice itself was legal, to bind the defendants.

Though delivered to him at Boston, and while he was attending his duties as a member of the legislature, it was nevertheless his duty to take care of it, if he received it, and his receiving it discharged the plaintiffs from any further duty m regard to the notice.

But we think the notice was not sufficiently distinct, to oblige the town of Hopkinton to take any measures in consequence of it. They are informed, that Eliza Snell and her three children are at the expense of the plaintiffs, and are requested to remove them. Now she had four children, and it would not be possible for the defendants to know which of them were the subjects of the request. In the preceding letter they were called upon to remove all four ; but one having ceased to be chargeable, they are now requested to remove three, without naming them, or designating that one which had ceased to be chargeable. This is at least as uncertain as a notice that such a man and his family were chargeable, which has been held insufficient, except that the number is certain. But there was nothing to secure them against mistake, and perhaps an action of trespass, for taking one who had ceased to be liable. We think for this cause, that except as to Eliza Snell alone, the notice was insuf ficient, and the plaintiffs must become nonsuit. 
      
       See Green v. Taunton, 1 Greenl. 228.
     
      
       See Gorham v. Calais, 4 Greenl. 475.
     
      
       See Bangor v. Deer Isle, 1 Greenl. 329; Dover v. Paris, 5 Greenl. 430; 
        Ware v. Williamstown, 8 Pick, 388; Orange v. Sudbury, 10 Pick. 22; Ux bridge v. Seekonk, 10 Pick 150; Chichester v. Pembroke, 2 N. Hamp R. 530 Lanesborough v. New Ashford, 5 Pick. 190