Case Name: COVINGTON TWP. OVERSEERS VS. SAYRE
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1884-03-10
Citations: 4 Walk. 128
Docket Number: No. 259
Parties: COVINGTON TWP. OVERSEERS VS. SAYRE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 128–131

Head Matter:
COVINGTON TWP. OVERSEERS VS. SAYRE.
After an order for relief is made by two Justices the poor district is liable for the pauper’s support, until his last settlement is found.
Error to Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, No. 259, January Term, 1883.
The findings of the referee were as follows:
1. That Charles Sayre, in the year 1876, by reason of old age, became unable to work, and to earn himself a livelihood.
2. That in the year 1876 Charles Sayre was a denizen of Covington Township, then part of the County of Luzerne, now of the County of Lackawanna.
3. That on the 25th day of September, 1876, the said Charles Sayre presented in his own behalf to the Overseers of the Poor of Covington Township, and order of relief issued by Franklin Lancaster and-Hardenbergh, two justices of the peace of Luzerne County.
4. That in obedience to such order of relief, D. G. Miller, one of the Overseers of the Poor of Covington Township, sent. Charles Sayre.to the plaintiff’s house to board.
5. That on the 23d daj’’ of July, 1S77, the plaintiff, H. N Sayre, obtained an order ol' relief for the said Charles Sayrefrom Franklin Lancaster and David Dale, two justices of the peace of Luzerne County, directed to the Overseers of the Poor of Covington Township, which order of relief was duly presented to and acted upon by Overseers of said township.
6. That the plaintiff boarded the said Charles Sayre from the 25th September, 1876, to the 27th January, 1877, and from the 7th day of August, 1877, to the 9th day of November, 1879, a period of seventy-six weeks.
7. That it was reasonably worth $2.00 a week to board the said pauper.
8. That the amount due the plaintiff from the Township.of Covington is $152.00, with -interest from the 9th day of November, 1878.
The referee finds the following conclusions of law:
1. That the Township of Covington became legally liable for the care and maintenance of Charles Sayre on the 25th day of September, 1876, when the Overseers of the Poor received the order of relief from Lancaster and Hardenbergb, justices of the peace.
2. That even if the Overseers of the Poor of the township believed that Charles Sayre had no legal settlement therein, still the township was and is liable for his support, until his last place of settlement was ascertained and they had removed him to it.
POINTS — A. H. Winton, Esq., on behalf of defendant, asks the referee to find as follows :
1. That it appearing from the evidence that the alleged orders of relief both had been signed by the justices 'of the peace, but that in either case the two magistrates on each had not conferred together before signing the same, or had any joint action or investigation of the matter therein contained. The referee is requested to find as a matter of law, that under the 6th section of the Act of 1836, the execution of such a law by two magistrates is a judicial act, and in its nature an act of judgment, and that it is indispensibly necessary that the two justices should be and confer together when they grant an order of relief, and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover.
2. The referee is requested to find as a matter of law that| the plaintiff as an volunteer, furnishing supplies against theí protest and warning of the Overseers of the Poor of Covington! Township cannot therefore recover, and that his remedy to procure the support of his brother was by mandamus or by •prosecution for misdemeanor in office.
ANSWERS — The referee refuses to find the conclusions of1 law as asked by defendant’s counsel.
The Court entered judgment in favor of Sayre and against the township for $152.00, and the township took this writ of error, assigning a number of errors.
R. W. Archbald, Esq., for plaintiff in errorj
argued that liability under the poor laws was purely statutory : Danville vs. Montour, 75 Pa. 38; New Bedford vs. Hingham, 117 Mass. 445; Atkins vs. Banwell, 2 East. 505. There was no right to recover without a prior order for relief: Harmony vs. Forest, 91 Pa. 407; Laporte vs. Hillsgrove, 95 Penna. 278; Sayer vs. Springfield, 3 Halstead, N. J., 208; Overseers vs. Baker, 2 Watts 280; Thornbury vs. Directors, 12 S. & R. 110; Simpson vs. Johnson, 1 Douglas 7. The order was invalid, having been shown to have been signed by the two justices separately; Queen vs. West, 2 Modern 180; Rex vs. Beard, 2 Salkeld 478; Billings vs. Prinn, 2 Wm. Blackstone 1017; King vs. Hamstall, 3 Term Rep. 380; King vs. Forest, 3 Term Rep. 38; King vs. Wykes, 2 Strange 1092; Ware vs. Stanhead, 2 Salkeld 488; Lampiter vs. Lancaster, 2 Yeates 164; Cumberland vs. Jefferson, 25 Pa. 465; Regina vs. Totnes, 7 Ad. v. Ellis, 695. The relief furnished bjr plaintiff against the protest of the Overseers was voluntary : Salsbury vs. Phila., 44 Pa. 306; Everts vs. Adams, 12 Johnson 352; Flower vs. Allen, 5 Cowen 654; McCaffrey vs. Shields, 54 Wisconsin 645; Knox Co. vs. Jones, 7 Indiana 3; Rouse vs. Peoria, 2 Gilman 109; Thetford vs. Hubbard, 22 Vermont 440; Caswell vs. Hazard, 10 R. I. 490. If the poor authorities neglect their duties, mandamus will lie.: Commth, vs Jersey Shore, 82 Pa. 275.
A. D. Dean, Esq., contra,
argued that signing the order •separately would not invalidate it: Battye vs. Gresley, 8 East 327 ; 4 Burns Justice 22 and 620; Rex vs. Stotfold, 4 Durnf. and East. 596; Rex vs. Winwick, 8 Durnford and East. 454. Granting an order is not a judicial act. Even if . the first order was not valid, the second one was. After the order was issued, the relief was not voluntary. The township was bound to support the pauper until they found the place of his last settlement: Lampiter vs. Lancaster, 2 Yeates 164; Milton vs. Williamsport, 9 Penna. 46; Kelly vs. Union, 5 W. & S. 535; Roxboro vs. Bunn, 12 S. & R. 292; Directors vs. Murray, 32 Pa. 178; Chester vs. Worthington, 38 Pa. 160; Directors vs. Wallace, 8 W. & S. 96; Directors vs. Malaney, 64 Pa. 150. The case of Salsbury vs. Philadelphia, 44 Pa. 300, was under a special Act relative to Philadelphia.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas, on March 10, 1884, in the following opinion :
Pee Cueiam
The facts found by the referee support this judgment. The order of relief is regular in form, and was duly procured. This imposed on the plaintiff in error an obligation to support and maintain the pauper until his settlement was found to be elsewhere. That was not so found. The poor district continued liable for his support, and became obligated to pay the sum reasonably charged for his maintenance. •
Judgment affirmed.