Case Name: THE BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, RESPONDENT, v. J. HARRY WHITE, ADMINISTRATOR OF SALLIE A. WHITE, DECEASED, APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1918-10-11
Citations: 92 N.J.L. 251
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, RESPONDENT, v. J. HARRY WHITE, ADMINISTRATOR OF SALLIE A. WHITE, DECEASED, APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 251–253

Head Matter:
THE BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, RESPONDENT, v. J. HARRY WHITE, ADMINISTRATOR OF SALLIE A. WHITE, DECEASED, APPELLANT.
Submitted July 8, 1918
Decided October 11, 1918.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
“This suit was brought to recover from the estate of Sallie A. White, deceased, compensation for board furnished her, and medical attention received by her, while an inmate in the Burlington county insane asylum from June 26th, 1914, to July 19th, 1915. The case was tried before Judge Carrow without a jury. He found in favor of the plaintiff, determining that the estate of the deceased was liable to make compensation for the board furnished and medical attention received by her, and fixing that compensation at the rate of $6 per week.
“The principal ground of appeal seems to be that no liability existed, because of the failure of the committing tribunal to make any order with relation to the payment of compensation, but this fact, we think, is immaterial in determining the question of liability in the present case, for the reason that the proviso of the eighth section of the Revision of the Insane Laws of the state (Pamph. L. 1913, p. 462) declares that the officer in charge of the financial affairs or business management of any state or county insane asylum shall not be barred nor limited in the collection by suit at law, or any other legal method, of any sum due any person for his or her support and maintenance, or from any fund liable therefor, 'irrespective of the absence from limitation in or directions given in the order of commitment, or the omission to make such order.
“The other matters referred to in the appellant’s brief have received consideration from us and we find them without merit.
“The judgment under review will be affirmed.”
For the respondent, J. Mercer Davis and Robert Peacock.
For the appellant, Timothy J. Middleton and Herbert A. Drake.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.