Action by the county of Delaware against the town of Delaware, Sullivan bounty. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
William Shelp and family prior to May 13, 1901, had resided for more than a year, and thereby gained a settlement, in the town of Delaware, county of Sullivan. On that day he voluntarily moved himself and family into the town of Hancock, county of Delaware. While in such town of Delaware he supported his family continuously, and no relief was ever asked or furnished him or the family by that town. In the July following, application was made by his family to the overseer of the poor of the town of Hancock for relief; and on investigation, he finding them destitute, relief was furnished them, and the superintendent of the poor of Delaware county notified. The superintendent thereupon took charge of them, and thereafter furnished them necessary relief for some three or four months, amounting in all to $83.89. It seems to be conceded that during such time Shelp himself was confined in jail in Delaware county for some offense committed in July. As soon as the county superintendent took charge of the family, he served upon the overseer of the poor of the town of Delaware, Sullivan county, a notice to take charge of such family, as required by section 51 of the poor law (Laws 1896, p. 154, c. 225). Such overseer thereupon served upon the said superintendent a notice denying all liability for their support, as permitted by section 52 of such law. This action was thereupon brought against such town to recover the amount so expended by the superintendent of Delaware county. It was tried and submitted to the court without a jury. A decision was rendered in favor of the ■ defendant, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, with costs, and from the judgment entered thereon this appeal is taken.
Argued before PARKER, P. J., and SMITH, CHASE, CHESTER, and HOUGHTON, JJ.Wagner & Fisher, for appellant.
T. F. Bush, for respondent.
I think it may be conceded that Shelp and his family had gained a settlement, and still retained it, in the town of Delaware, Sullivan county, when they applied for relief to the overseer of the town of Hancock (see section 40 of the Poor Law, Laws 1896, p. 149, c. 225) ; and still the said town of Delaware was-not liable to reimburse the county of Delaware for such relief. When such family became in need of public relief, it was actually residing in the county of Delaware. It had not been moved or enticed to move into such county as a “poor person”; but it had gone voluntarily into that county from the town of Delaware, without having ever become, been treated, or been considered as a “poor person” while in that town. In July, therefore, when it asked for public relief, it was in the situation referred to in subdivision 2 of section 42 of the poor law. It “had not gained a settlement in any town or city in the county in which it became poor, sick or infirm,” and it must therefore, as further provided by such subdivision, “be supported and relieved by the superintendent of the poor at the expense of the county.” Clearly that is of the county in which it became poor, viz., Delaware county. Now, Delaware county, as between it and any town in that county, agrees to such conclusion; but it claims that, under the provisions of section 51 of such law, it may demand to be reimbursed by any town outside of such county