Case ID: johns_2/html/0105-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The overseers of the poor of Southfield against the -overseers of the poor of Bloomingrove.
    Wh^n an order fot* ..e re-pauper°has the pauper’rí moved &. set-tied and maintained by an-no'appeai"’& de°i'%he\j°usti íTwaJgranted cannot, after-wards, supersede it. '
    t # On the return to- a certiorari to the general sessions of the.peace in Orange county, the following facts appeared, A pauper was removed from Bloomingrove to the town of Southfield, by an order of removal, under the hands and J * , ' _ seals or two justices of the peace, dated 20th of June, 1805. On an appeal from this order, it was confirmed ^y the general sessions of the peace, in Orange county. It appeared that omthe 23d of Nov., 1803, two jus-°f the peace of Suffollc county made an order for the removal of the same pauper, from the town of River- . head to Bloomingrove; and she was accordingly removed in February, 1804, and delivered, with a copy of the order,"to the overseers of the poor oí Bloomingrove, who received and maintained her as a pauper of that town until the 20th of June, 1805. It appeared further, that the same justices of Suffollc, on the 10th of June, 1805, issued a supersedeas of this former order, directed to the overseers of Bloomingrove, declaring their former order to be quashed, obsolete, null and void.
    T. A. Emmett, for the plaintiff in error.
    An order of removal once made and not appealed from, is conclusive, and the justice at Riverhead had no right to issue a supersedeas'. A supersedeas is never allowed where the pauper has been in fact removed under the order. While the order is in fieri, it may perhaps be superseded; hut by the removal, it is executed, and cannot thén be superseded. [He was stopped by the court, who desired to hear the other side.]
    
      Jones, contra.
    .The power of superseding orders of removal ought to be favoured, as it is much less expensive, and more expeditious than the proceeding-by appeal. Orders have been revoked after a removal. If the order was conclusive, it was as much so when first made as a year after. It is true, that the time for an appeal had elapsed ; but this does not affect the question as to a supersedeas. The only question is, whether the justices have a right to supersede. If they have, it does not depend on the law as to appeals. In England, an order of removal may be abandoned.
    
    
      
      
        BqU,s Poor laws, 626'
    
    
      
      
        Burrows Set. Cases, 658.
    
   Per Curiam.

The justices of Riverhead could not su persede the order of removal granted by them in Novemler, 1803, after the pauper had beeñ removed, settled, and maintained in Bloomingrove near twenty months, by virtue of that removal, and when no appeal had been made from that order. The order of the sessions must be reversed. ■ Judgment reversed.