Case Name: THE INHABITANTS OF GREENE v. THE INHABITANTS OF TAUNTON
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1821-05
Citations: 1 Me. 228
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE INHABITANTS OF GREENE v. THE INHABITANTS OF TAUNTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
THE INHABITANTS OF GREENE v. THE INHABITANTS OF TAUNTON.
Where the town in which a pauper had his settlement, being duly notified pursuant to the statute, paid the expenses of his support and removed him, but before he reached the place of his settlement he returned to the town where he had been removed, where he again became chargeable -, it was hol-den that the town in which he had his settlement was not liable for the expenses accruing after his return, without a new notice.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the ex. penses of supporting a female pauper. Plea, the general issue. It appeared that on the last of June 1817, the defendants paid the expenses incurred prior to that time, and also in adVance up to July 10, 18P7. The plaintiffs then gave written and formal notice, on the last of June, that the pauper was ex« pensive to them, and that the expense was and would be charged to the defendants, and requesting the defendants to. pay the expenses and remove the pauper. The defendants afterwards, and before the lQth day of July, having entered into an agreement with one of the inhabitants of Greene whom they constituted their agent for that purpose, at their own expense, removed the pauper from Greene as far as Boston ; from which place, instead of proceeding to Taunton, she returned, after an absence of two or three weeks, to Greene, and again became expensive to that town. The overseers of the poor of Greene thereupon, on the first day of September 1817, wrote a letter to the overseers of the poor of Taunton, which was duly received by them, stating that they had formerly written to them “ respecting the Williams girl,” as the pauper was called,—that she had been sent to Boston, but11 had returned,”—that her brother-in-law had offered to support her at a low price, which was less than the plaintiffs could support her at,—and requesting them to forward a contract for that purpose, or make other arrangements, and give information to the plaintiffs as soon as convenient. To this letter there was no reply.
Upon this evidence the Judge who presided at the trial of the case directed a nonsuit; reserving, for the consideration of the whole Court, the question whether the letter of Sept. 1, could be considered, under the circumstances of the case, as a sufficient legal notice ; and whether the notice given on the 30th of June 1817, prior to the removal, could be considered as extending to the expenses incurred after the pauper’s return to Greene.
A. Belcher, for the plaintiffs.
The defendants having neglected to reply, or having taken away the pauper, are estopped to contest her settlement forever;—and the object of notice, being only to give the town an opportunity to ascertain the settlement of the pauper, is answered as soon as the settlement is fixed. Embden v. Augusta, 12 Mass. 307. Westminster v. Barnardston, 8 Mass. 104.
Bond, for the defendants.
There is no moral obligation upon towns, to support the poor; it is merely the creation of a positive statute ; and the forms of the statute must be strictly pursued. These forms constitute a condition precedent to the plaintiffs’ title to recover. Here, all the prior debt was cancelled by payment, and the pauper was actually removed by the defendants. So far therefore as respects subsequent expenses she was a new pauper, and notice should have issued de novo. Sidney v. Augusta, 12 Mass. 316. Hallow ell v, Harwich, 14 Mass. 186.

Opinion:
The Court observed that the objects sought by the first notice were obtained by the removal of the pauper at the expense of the defendants, and the admission of her settlement in Taunton. But after her return to Greene, the defendants could not know that she was again chargeable as a pauper, without new notice, which in this case was not given, the letter of September 1, being materially defective, and insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended. And even if the question as to settlement were at rest, }ret a new notice is not the less necessary in cases of this kind, that the town notified may have opportunity to elect whether they will support the pauper in another town, or remove her to their own.
Judgment for the defendants.