Case ID: hill_4/html/0558-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cowen, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte Green & Brown.
    Superindfendents of the poor are not bound to audit the accounts of physicians and others for sendees rendered to county paupers by request of the overseers of the poor of the several towns; and this, though the services were rendered in pursuance of orders for temporary relief.
    It is the duty of the overseers to adjust such accounts and charge them in their bills against the county.
    The employment of a physician by the superintendents of the poor of a county does not supersede the right of the overseers of the several towns to employ other physicians to attend county paupers entitled to temporary relief.Semble; per Coweñ, J.
    The relators, who were physicians, had, at the request of an overseer of the poor of the town of Little Falls, in Herkimer county, rendered professional services to several paupers, some of whom were entitled to temporary relief pursuant to orders obtained for that purpose under 1 R. S. 633, § 46, 2d ed. The distinction between town and county poor did not, at the time, exist in Herkimer. The relators presented their accounts to the superintendents of the poor of the county, who refused to audit them ; and, as to some of them, would not receive and take them into their consideration, even where the services were duly rendered pursuant to the order of a justice of the peace. The refusal of the superintendents was put upon the ground that they had themselves employed a physician to act in all cases.
    
      M. T. Reynolds, for the relators, moved for a mandamus commanding the superintendents to audit.
    
      D.'Burwell, contra.
   By the Court,

Cowen, J.

It is unnecessary to say whether the employment of a physician by the superintendents superdfeded the right of the overseers of the poor to employ other physicians in local cases arising under the 46th section of the statute j (1 R. S. 633, 2d ed. f) though it strikes me not. However that may be, I think it entirely clear that the superintendents are bound to do no more under that section than audit the account of the overseer himself against the county, for any sum paid or contracted to be paid by him. The 62d section, (id. p. 636,) requiring the superintendents to audit and allow all accounts of overseers of the poor, justices of the peace and all other persons, for services relating to the support, relief or transportation of county paupers, can have full operation without requiring the audit and allowance of accounts in favor of individuals dealing with the overseers in the several towns. Such accounts may be very numerous, and occasionally very trifling ; and it is peculiarly fit that they should first be adjusted by the overseer, and charged by him in general account.

Motion denied,