The Portland daily press., 1895-05-22
CAN'T COLLECT.
Decision of Interest to Municipal Officers
and Citizens Generally.

The Supreme Court of this State has
just decided a case which will be of in
terest to Municipal officers as well as to
citizens generally. It is the case of M.
S. Goodrich ard Fred E. Withee, CO.
partners in the business of physicians at
Waterville, Maine, wherein they seek to
recover for professional services and
medicine furnished woman pauper of
that city. The case was before the Court
on an agreed statement of facts wherein
it was admitted that at the time the SER
vices were rendered DR.. Goodrich was a
member of the Common Council of the
City, and that the City at the time had
a City Physician under salary who
might have been called, but that for
some reason the overseers of the poor
called the plaintiffs.
The full text of the opinion is as fol-
lows:
Walton, J. This is an action to re-
cover for medical attendance upon pau
per. Payment is resisted upon the
ground that the plaintiffs were not legal
ly employed.
1t appears that at the time when the
city had regularly and legally elected
city physician, who was being paid a
salary for medical attendance upon all
its paupers, and who might have been
called TO treat the pauper, but that, for
some unexplained reason, the overseers
of the poor did not see fit to call him,
and employed the plaintiffs. 1t also ap-
pears that at the time of the employ ment
of the plaintiffs, one OF them was a
member of the city council. And it is
claimed that under these circumstances,
the employ ment of the plaintiffs WAS un-
authorized and illegal.
We think the defense must be sus-
tanned. 1t is true that overseers OF the
poor may, when necessary, provide for
The medical treatment of the paupers
under their care. But when town or
city has already provided for the medical
treatment of its sick paupers, by the
election of a town or city physician, and
he is ready and willing and competent to
attend sick pauper, SO that no necessity
exists for employing any other, it is un-
doubtedly the duty of the oyerseers OF
the poor to call him, when ore of the
paupers under their care is sick and in
need of medical treatment. And, in
such case, we think they have no au-
thority TO employ any other; and, If
Others aIe~ employed, that they are
chargeabie with notice that they will
.
city to compensate them for their servic-
es. All persons acting under the employ
ment of town or city officers must take
notice at their peril of the extent of the
authority of such officers.
And, again, 1t has been wisely enacted
that mo member of city government
shall be interested. directly or indirectly,
in any contract entered into by such gov
eminent while he is mem ber thereof. "
r. IS C. 8 g. &c. And the statute cited
declares that all such contracts shall be
void. If the employment of the plaintiffs
did not create such contract, then, of
course, their action is not maintaina BILE /;
for such q contract is the cause of action,
and the only cause of action, declared
on. If it did create such a contract, it
was one in which member of the city
government was directly interested, and,
for tina reason, one which the statute
cited declares shall be vol d; and, being
thus made void, of course no action can
be maintained upon it. We think this,
also, is a valid ground of defense. The
statute makes no distinction with regard
to the character of the contract. It may
be to build a city hall or open street
or construct a bridge or take charge of a
sick pauper. All are alike Illegal and
void. The statute makes no distinction.
Plaintiffs Nonsuit.
Peters, Chief Justice and Emery, Eos
ter, Haskell and Strout, Associate JUS
tices, concurred.