Case Name: Merrimack County v. Concord
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1890-12
Citations: 66 N.H. 389
Docket Number: 
Parties: Merrimack County v. Concord.
Judges: Allen and Carpenter, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 389–389

Head Matter:
Merrimack County v. Concord.
Money paid by a county for tlie support of an inmate of tlie asylum for the insane who is not a pauper cannot he recovered of the town in which such person has a legal settlement.
Assumpsit, to recover the sum of $723.41, paid by the plaintiffs to the New Hampshire Asylum for the Insane for the support of certain insane persons committed to said asylum by the judge of probate for Merrimack county, by virtue of c. 10, Gen. Laws. Neither of the persons was, at the time of his commitment, a pauper, but each had a legal settlement in Concord.
Albin & Martin, for the plaintiffs.
H. G. Sargent, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Blodgett, J.
The statute upon which the plaintiffs rely provides that any insane person committed to the asylum by any judge of probate shall be supported by the county from which he is committed, and that such county shall be entitled to recover the amount so paid of any town, county, or individual by law liable for the support of such inmate. G. L., e. 10, ss. 16, 21. But the right of recovery thus conferred cannot be enforced against the defendants. The statutory liability extends to those only upon whom the law imposes the duty of support, and this duty does not attach to the defendants. The insane persons for whose support the plaintiffs claim to recover not being paupers, there is no duty or liability on the defendants to support them at the asylum or elsewhere. The liability of a town for the support of persons who have acquired a settlement therein is not absolute, but conditional, and embraces only those who subsequently become destitute and unable to support themselves. The plaintiffs' action lacks these indispensable requisites, and therefore cannot be maintained.
Judgment for the defendants.
Allen and Carpenter, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.