Case ID: mass_167/html/0579-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lathrop, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City of Boston vs. Inhabitants of Acton.
    Suffolk.
    November 18, 1896.
    February 25, 1897.
    Present: Field, C. J., Allen, ICnowlton, Morton, & Lathrop, JJ.
    
      Pauper — Notice —• Removal by Town.
    
    There is no occasion for the overseers of the poor of a town to take any action on the receipt of a notice from the overseers of the poor of a city that a woman whose settlement is alleged to be in the town has become chargeable to the city and that her removal is requested, if her name is stated in the notice as Mary R, whereas her name then and for some time afterwards was Mary E. P., and there is nothing to show that she was known in the town as Mary R, or that the overseers of the poor had any seasonable knowledge who was meant by the notice.
    Contract, for expenses incurred in the care of a pauper alleged by the plaintiff to have had a settlement in the defendant town.
    The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the defendant to this court, on appeal, upon agreed facts, in substance as follows.
    The plaintiff for a period of one hundred and two days, beginning with June 28, 1893, furnished board and care in its hospital to a certain woman under the name of Mary Richardson, she being in immediate need of relief and unable to provide for herself. On July 7 of that year the plaintiff’s overseers of the poor sent to the defendant’s overseers of the poor the following notice :
    “ Mary Richardson, now residing in this city, but whose legal settlement is in your town, being in needy circumstances, has applied to this board for relief, which we have granted and charged to your town, and shall continue so to do until you remove her, which you are hereby requested to do, or otherwise provide for her support.”
    To this notice the defendant’s overseers of the poor made no reply, and did not remove the pauper, or otherwise provide for her support.
    The woman’s legal name at the time when the aid was furnished her was Mary E. Powers, and she had no settlement in the defendant town during that time. On October 28, 1894, Mary E. Powers married one Everett A. Richardson, whose father, James Richardson, had had for many years a settlement in the defendant town, Everett A. Richardson having no other settlement than that derived from bis father. Subsequently to the receipt of the foregoing notice, and prior to the time within which a settlement might have been denied legally, one of the board of overseers of the poor of the defendant' town applied orally to the board, of overseers of the poor of the plaintiff city for a statement of the ground upon which Mary Richardson was alleged to have a legal settlement in the defendant town, and was informed that she was the wife of Everett A. Richardson, who had a settlement m that town. This statement was believed to be true at that time by both boards, and the truth was not ascertained by the overseers of the poor of the defendant town until too late to make the denial of settlement in writing required by the Public Statutes.
    If the plaintiff was entitled to recover, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff for one hundred and two dollars, and interest from the date of the writ; otherwise, judgment was to be entered for the defendant.
    
      S. M. Child, for the plaintiff.
    
      R. E. Joslin, for the defendant.
   Lathrop, J.

This case turns on the question of the sufficiency of the notice sent by the overseers of the poor of the plaintiff to (he overseers of the poor of the defendant. The name of the person to whom aid was furnished was stated to be Mary. Richardson, whereas her name then and for some time afterwards was Mary E. Powers. There is nothing in the agreed facts to show that she was known in the defendant town as Mary Richardson, or that the overseers of the poor had any seasonable knowledge who was meant by the notice sent. There was therefore no occasion for them to take any action in the matter. Pub. Sts. c. 84, §§ 28, 29. Lanesborough v. New Ashford, 5 Pick. 190. Walpole v. Hopkinton, 4 Pick. 358. Carver v. Taunton, 152 Mass. 484.

Judgment affirmed.