Case Name: The inhabitants of Peru vs. The inhabitants of Turner
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1833-05
Citations: 10 Me. 185
Docket Number: 
Parties: The inhabitants of Peru vs. The inhabitants of Turner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 185–191

Head Matter:
The inhabitants of Peru vs. The inhabitants of Turner.
The admissions, either by acts or declarations, of the overseers of the poor of a town, cannot have the effect to change the settlement of a pauper from one town to another.
The town of P. by vote, agreed to accept a pauper as an inhabitant, on condition, that the town of T. would relinquish all demands against the former town. Nearly six years afterward, the latter town accepted the proposition» and tendered to the town of P. a note, that being the only demand it held against that town. This was held to be an unreasonable delay, and that the tender was wholly inoperative to revive the proposal and render it binding on the town of P.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought for the recovery of a sum of money expended by the plaintiffs for the support of Sally Turner, a pauper, whose settlement was alleged to be in the town'of Turner. The general issue was pleaded and joined.
That the pauper stood in need of relief in the town of Peru, — that she was furnished with supplies to the extent set forth, — and that notice was seasonably given to Turner, and seasonably answered by that town, denying the settlement of the pauper to be in that town, were facts admitted.
For the plaintiffs, Robinson Turner, the father of the pauper testified, that she was forty-one years of age. — That he moved into Turner, in 1793, where he resided until 1810. — That, while there he occupied a farm of fifty acres, which was his own property in fee, from which he supported his family; that he had besides neat stock, and that he regularly paid taxes in Turner, during his whole residence there. — That, in 1810, he removed to Livermore, and in two and a half years afterward, removed to Peru, then a plantation, where he had ever since resided. — That while the pauper was between 17 and 18 years of age, she had a fall from a horse, which was followed by a fit of sickness ; since which time she had been at times deranged, especially for the last two years. — That the pauper became 21 years of age while he lived in Livermore, and had not since that time lived in his family.
For the defendants, it appeared in evidence that on the 7th of September, 1822, Turner notified Peru, that the pauper was in distress in the former town and in need of relief, and that Turner had incurred expenses for her support; — alleging that her settlement was in Peru, and requesting the latter town to reimburse the expense and to remove her. It did not appear that Peru, which was incorporated February 5, 1821, ever returned any answer to this notice. The overseers of the town of Turner, however, caused her removal to Peru, March 18, 1823 ; and thereupon, on the 29th of July, 1823, the overseers of the town of Peru, gave a note to the town of Turner, for the expenses previously incurred by Turner for her support and removal. The note was as follows, viz. :
“ Peru, July 29,1823. For value received in a debt due to “ the town of Turner, for keeping Sally Turner, a pauper, charge- “ able to the town of Peru, we the undersigned, overseers of the “ poor for the'town of Peru, promise to pay the town of Tur- “ ner, the sum of ninety-five dollars and five cents, in one year “ from this date with interest. And by these presents bind our- “ selves and our successors in office to pay the same.
“ Enoch Jaquis, ) Overseers of the poor for
“ James Lunt, ) the town of Peru.”
Peru continued to support the pauper, when she needed it, until they set up the claim controverted in this suit.
September 18, 1823, the defendants in town meeting duly voted, that if Peru would adopt the pauper as their inhabitant, the town agent of Turner might relinquish to Peru the whole or apart of said note. April 11, 1825, Turner also duly voted, that their town agent relinquish to Peru the vehole of said note, if Peru would adopt the pauper as an inhabitant of that town. And on the 28th of May, 1825, W. K. Porter, Esq. agent for Turner, made to Peru the following communication, viz.
“ If the town of Peru will pass a vote, at a legal meeting of “ its inhabitants, to admit Sally Turner, a pauper, residing in said “ Peru, to be a legal inhabitant thereof, having inserted an art- “ icle in their warrant to that effect, for calling said meeting, and “ will produce to me a copy of the warrant and return thereon, “ and also a copy of the vote passed at said meeting admitting “ the said Sally, all duly authenticated, I then by virtue of au- “ thority placed in me, by the town of Turner, hereby agree “ to relinquish and give up to said Peru the sum of eighty dol- “ iars on the note which the town of Timer holds against the “ town of Peru.”
September 12, 1825, Peru duly voted to accept the pauper as their inhabitant, if Turner would relinquish the whole of their demands against Peru. But Turner did not tender to Peru the note aforesaid until May 2, 1831.
Eevi Ludden, who was agent for the town of Peru in 1828, testified for the plaintiffs, that in that year he had a conversation with W. K. Porter, Esq. then agent for Turner, respecting this pauper, and that in that conversation Porter told him that Peru must pay the note aforesaid, or comply unconditionally with his written proposition of May 28, 1825. The testimony of Ludden was objected to, but admitted by the presiding Judge.
A verdict was taken for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the whole Court. If that should be, that the plaintiffs had made out their case by competent proof, judgment was to be rendered on the verdict, otherwise the verdict was to be set aside, and the plaintiffs to become nonsuit.
Greenleaf and Porter, for the defendants.
1. The pauper having been a lunatic, or at times insane, from the age of 17 or 18, was never emancipated from her father, but acquired a settlement with him when Peru, was incorporated, Feb. 6, 1821.. Upton v. Northbridge, 15 Mass. 237 ; Buckland v. Charlemont, 3 Pick. 173.
2. The notice to Peru which was not answered — the subsequent removal of the pauper, and the adjustment of the claim for her support, estop the plaintiffs from denying that her settlement is in that town. This case is clearly distinguishable from the' case of Turner v. Brunswick, 5 Greenl. 31. It is a well known rale that a case must be understood and interpreted by the facts in that case. Now in that case there was no proof that the pauper lived in or belonged to Brunsioick, nor was there proof as in this case, of a removal and adjustment.
The plaintiffs are also estopped to deny the settlement of the pauper in Peru, by the direct admission to that effect, by the overseers of Peru, in their note to Turner. These admissions were made under a perfect knowledge of all the circumstances of the case. Burlington v. Calais, 1 Vermont Cases, 385; Quincy v. Braintree, 5 Mass. 86; Bridgewater v. Dartmouth, 4 Mass. 273 ; Abbot v. 3d School District in Hermon, 7 Greenl. 118 ; Maine Laws, 2, 542.
The plaintiffs are also estopped by their vote adopting the pauper as an inhabitant. It is not conditional, but in effect absolute, when taken in connection with the previous vote oí Turner. One makes a proposal, and the. other accepts.
The declaration of the agent of Turner should not prejudice the rights of that town, if in making them he transcends his authority. American Fur Co. v. United States, 2 Peters’ Rep. 358; Gibson v. Coult, 7 Johns. 391.
If it was necessary to make a tender of the note, the case finds, that one- was made before the commencement of this action.
Fessenden &f Deblois, for the plaintiffs,
cited the following authorities. Wilbraham v. Springfield, 4 Mass. 493 ; Wis casset v. Waldoborough, 3 Greenl. 388; Buckland v. Charlemont, 3 Pick. 173 ; Turner v. Brunswick, 5 Greenl. 31.

Opinion:
Mellen C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is proved that the father of the pauper gained a settlement in Turner, by a residence in that town for more than ten years, and payment of all taxes assessed upon him and his property during all that time. This point in the cause has not been contested on the part of Turner; of course the pauper, who was a minor when her father resided in Turner, gained a derivative settlement there also, and still retains it, unless she has since gained a new settlement in Peru, under her father, he having resided in that town at the time of its incorporation. It has been contended that she was incapable of gaining a settlement in her own right, on account of mental disability and derangement, and, of course, must be considered as an infant in this respect — we do not, however, consider the authorities cited, as applicable to the present case. She has never been a member of his family, since he resided in Bivermore, which was prior to his removal to Peru. Besides, the evidence of incapacity is of a very feeble character. — The injury she sustained, happened several years since, soon after which she had a fit of sickness, and was at times deranged, especially two years ago — that is, in 1830 and 1831. There was no such permanent absence of intellect or reason as would incapacitate her to gain a settlement in her own right. Neither do we think that Peru is estopped to deny the settlement of the pauper to be in that town, on account of the omission to answer the notice which was given by Turner. We consider the case of Turner v. Brunswick, as decisive of this objection. We particularly refer to that case for the reasons of our opinion. We do not view the circumstance of the removal of the pauper to Peru as creating any distinction between the two cases, as to the principle of estoppel. It is however contended that certain transactions on the part of the overseers of Peru, have estopped that town to deny their liability to support the pauper. — There are many acts which the overseers of a town may do, which will bind the town, though no special authority is given by the town for the purpose. From the necessity of the case, they may, by virtue of their office, make contracts for the support of the poor, and transact a variety of business in relation to their regulation and employment. In all which transactions, however, they are acting within the scope of their official duty •, but they have no authority by their mere acts or declarations to change the settlement of a pauper from one town to another ; and confess away the rights of their town, and subject it to liabilities and burdens by any of their arrangements. This is no part of their duty. Though the overseers of Peru gave the note for $ 95,05 to Turner, and therein acknowledged that the pauper was chargeable to Peru, that confession, or that act did not establish her settlement in Peru.
A town at a legal meeting, the warrant for calling which contained an article for the purpose, may by a vote admit a person an inhabitant of such town. Has Peru admitted the pauper as such ? In September, 1823, and again in April, 1825, Turner, by legal votes, made certain conditional proposals to Peru; but the agent of Turner, though authorised to communicate those proposals to Peru, did not do it, but made a conditional proposal less favourable to Peru. This proposal was not accepted by Peru. Some months afterwards Peru voted to accept the pauper as an inhabitant, on condition that Turner would relinquish to Peru all demands against that town. Thus far the towns had not agreed on any terms of arrangement. The proposition of neither town had been accepted by the other. This vote of Peru was passed September 12, 1825. From that time there was a profound silence. Turner took no notice of the vote by any corporate act, but on the 21st of May, 1831 — almost six years afterwards — the original agent of Turner, tendered the note to Peru. Was this reply to the offer of Peru of such a character, and given under such circumstances, as to create a binding obligation on the town of Peru ? or was the tender of the note so unreasonably delayed, as that it cannot be considered as closing any contract between the towns ? In our opinion the delay was an unreasonable one and the tender wholly inoperative — having had no effect on the offer made nearly six years before, — why an acceptance of the offer was not resolved upon and communicated before to Peru, does not appear on the report; but the motive may at least be conjectured to be, that in 1830 and 1831, the pauper became more frequently deranged, and the probability of her becoming more and more expensive to the town of Turner was evidently increasing. We consider the declarations of Mr. Porter, the agent, as of no importance or influence in the decision of the cause, and therefore the question, whether the testimony of Ludd.cn as to those declarations was admissible or not, ceases to have any interest, and it does not require an answer.
There must he judgment on the verdict.