Case Name: The overseers of the poor of the township of Gibson against The overseers of the poor of the township of Nicholson
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1816-06-27
Citations: 2 Serg. & Rawle 422
Docket Number: 
Parties: The overseers of the poor of the township of Gibson against The overseers of the poor of the township of Nicholson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 2
Pages: 422–425

Head Matter:
The overseers of the poor of the township of Gibson against The overseers of the poor of the township of Nicholson.
A decision of a dispute between two townships concerning a pauper, is conclusive upon a new township subsequently created, by a subdivision of one of them.
Certiorari.
CERTIORARI to the Quarter Sessions of Luzerne county, in which the following case was, by consent, stated . for the opinion of that Court.
•The pauper, Samuel Halstead, was an illegitimate child., born in the township of Nicholson, before the division thereof, and in that part of the said township now called Gibson, where his mother was legally settled. He was entered upon the poor books of the township of Nicholson as a pauper, and supported as such until the division of the said township; which was since the passing of the act of 24th March, 1803.
On the division of Nicholson township, a new township was created, called Clifford,, which embraced the present township of Gibson, within the territory of vvhich the said pauper was first legally settled, while that territory belonged to the-township of Nicholson.
Clifford then obtained an order of two justices to remove the said pauper to Nicholson. Nicholson appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Luzerne county, which was before the organisation'of Susquehanna county, and after hearing upon the merits,'the said Court reyersed the order of the two justices, and ordered the pauper back to Clifford.
The overseers of the poor of* the township of Clifford then entered the said pauper upon the poor books of the township, and supported him as a pauper until- the division of said Clifford township.
On the division of Clifford, a new township was erected called Gibson; within the territory of which the said pauper was first legally settled, while that territory belonged to the township of Nicholson.
The overseers of the poor of Gibson then applied to the above-named justices for an order td remove the said pauper to Nicholson. The said justices refused to make such order; from which refusal, Gibson appealed.
Before the division of the township of Nicholson, the overseers of the poor of said township took a bond for two hundred dollars of one Reuben Collar, to indemnify the said township for the support and maintenance of the said pauper, Reuban Collar left the country, and the amount of the bond Was attached in the hands of John Collar, and the overseers •V. ox the poor of the said township or Nicholson, engaged to keep the said pauper until the amount of the said bond was exhausted. John Collar resided in that part of Nicholson now called Gibson; and kept the said pauper under the said agreement, until the amount of the said bond was expended, which was about one year after the said division of Nicholson. The pauper from his birth had not possessed natural reason.
The Court of Quarter Sessions affirmed the proceedings of the justices.
Bradford for Gibson township.
Bellas for Nicholson township.

Opinion:
Tilghman C. J.
This cause appears to have been brought. before the Court of Quarter Sessions of Luzerne county, on a case stated, by consent. It could not have been decided by that Court, any otherwise than by consent, as the justices of the peace, whose decision was appealed from, were not of Luzerne but of Susquehanna county. I do not know, that under such circumstances, this,Court' is bound to interfere; the proceedings bélow having been out of the regular course, and altogether, a matter of consent. However, as it may tend to prevent future legislation and expense, we will give an opinion on the case stated. It appears then, that Gibson township was formerly a_part of Clifford township ; and while it was a part, a dispute took place between Clifford and Nicholson townships, respecting the settlement of Samuel Halstead., a pauper, who had been removed by the order of two justices, from Clifford to Nicholson. Nicholson appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Luzerne county, (in which both townships were at that time comprehended,) and after a hearing-on the merits, the oi'der of the justices was reversed, and the pauper sent back to Clifford. The rule of law is, that when an order of justices is reversed, it is conclusive on those townships, which were parties to the suit; but not on any' other township. The overseers of Gibson contend, that they are not concluded, because they were not a party. It is true they were not a party, because they were not in existence as a body corporate : but that whole district which now makes the township of Gibson, was included in Clifford, and therefore the case falls within the principle by which the parties to the controversy are concluded. The subdivision of townships by which several townships are made out of one is very frequent, and if upon every subdivision a contest concerning the settlement of a pauper which had been completely at rest should be revived, it would be productive of much expense and litigation ; and it is against reason, because the rights of all the inhabitants of the new township were under the protection of the overseers of the old township, at the time when the cause was decided: so that in truth they were a party. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the justices of Susquehanna county, who refused to make an order for the removal of Samuel Halstead from Gibson to Nicholson township, were right. Several other points were made in the argument in this cause, concerning which I give no opinion. It is unnecessary, because the point on which I have given my opinion is decisive.
Ye ates J.
The justices of the peace acted correctly,in refusing to give the order of removal of Samuel Halstead, applied for by the owners of Gibson township.- The opinion of the Court of Quarter Sessions was also correct upon the facts agreed upon and stated by the counsel on both sides.
I have no hesitation in declaring, that the legal settlement of the pauper was in Gibson township. He was a bastard, and born an idiot in that part of Nicholson township now called Gibson, where his mother also resided. He also resided in Gibson when it was struck off from Clifford. But that question is not now open for litigation. The overseers of the poor of Clifford obtained an order of removal, from two justices, of Halstead to Nicholson township, which was duly appealed from. Upon a hearing on the merits, the Sessions of Luzerne countytfuashed the order, and directed the overseers of. Clifford to refund to Nicholson the sums expended for the maintenance of the pauper, under the order of removal. This sentence was conclusive upon Clifford\ and of course bound Gibson, which then formed an integral part of it. It is not competent to the inhabitants of any portion of the lands comprehended within the former boundaries of Clifford township, now to contest the legality of that decision.
The appeal to the Sessions of Susquehanna county, from the refusal of the two justices of the peace to grant the order of removal, was incorrect. The act for the relief of the poor passed 9th March, 1771, which was made perpetual by the law of 25th March, 1782, does not authorise it. The 23d section of the act of 1771, gives an appeal to persons thinking themselves aggrieved by an order of removal of two justices' or magistrates: and it will be found that the provisions in the 28th section, are restricted to the cases enumerated in the preceding section, of persons coming from the city of Philadelphia into some township or place, or from one township to another township, and there becoming chargeable. The provisions in the 23d section render this more clear, where the exception contained therein is. duly attended to. Justices out of Sessions, when refusing to act, can with no propriety be said to have given a judgment by which others are aggrieved : and the words in the 28th section, " aggrieved by any "sentence of such justices, or by their refusal to make any " order," are evidently modified by the expressions as is aforesaid. And such, I have strong reason to believe, was the uniform construction of the law since it passed in 1771.
The counsel for Gibson township have entered this suit as an appeal from the judgment of Charles Dimon and Joel Tyler, esqs., two justices of the peace of Susquehanna county. In that point of view it cannot be supported ; but the error was their own. But it may be considered from the record as a case stated by the counsel for the opinion of the Sessions of Susquehanna county, and agreed to be argued before the Court in the county of Luzerne. In this light, I think the Sessions did right in approving of what the two justices had done : and that costs were properly assessed against Gibson township, under the 24th section of the law for preventing-vexatious appeals.
- I am of opinion, that the judgment of the Sessions bp affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.