Case Name: Overseers of the Poor of Dromore township, in Lancaster county against Overseers of the Poor of West Hanover township, in Dauphin county
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1794-04
Citations: 1 Yeates 366
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Overseers of the Poor of Dromore township, in Lancaster county against Overseers of the Poor of West Hanover township, in Dauphin county.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 1
Pages: 365–366

Head Matter:
*Overseers of the Poor of Dromore township, in Lancaster county against Overseers of the Poor of West Hanover township, in Dauphin county.
Order of removal of a pauper must state, that complant was made by the overseers of the poor of the township removing, and an adjudication or assertion, that the pauper was likely to become chargeable; otherwise the order will be bad.

Opinion:
This was an appeal by the plaintiffs from the Court of Quarter Sessions of Dauphin county, who by their judgment affirmed an order of two justices of the peace, removing Jane Porterfield from West Hanover to Dromore.
The order of the justices was in these words:
"Dauphin county, ss. Whereas complaint hath been made "to us the subscribers, two of the justices of the peace of the "said county, by the inhabitants of the township of West "Hanover in Dauphin county aforesaid, that Jane Porterfield "(alias Hillis) is likely to become chargeable to the said "township of West Hanover; and whereas by her own oath, "and by several other testimony, it appears and we do hereby "adjudge, that her last legal settlement is in' the township of "Dromore in the county of Lancaster therefore &c."
Mr. Tilghman for the appellants took two exceptions to the order of the two justices.
1. That it does not state that complaint was made to them by the overseers of the poor of West Hanover. [Vide 1 Sess. Cas. 6, 32. 12 Mod. 89. Carth. 365. 5 Mod. 149. 2 Salk. 492. Andr. 361.]
2. There is , no adjudication, or even assertion, that the pauper was likely to become chargeable. [Vide 2 Salk. 491. 1 Stra. 73. 1 Sess. Cas. 131. 2 Sess. Cas. 93.
Mr. Bradford for the appellees, admitted that both exceptions to the order were fatal.
Whereupon the court quashed the order of the two justices, and the judgment of affirmance thereof by the sessions.