Gallup v. Bell

Headnote

Swperintendents of the poor ■— can only furnish temporary relief to paupers at the poor-house — double costs, when allowed,.

Appeal from a judgment of tbe County Court of Otsego county, affirming a judgment of a justice’s court, in favor of tbe defendant.

Tbe action was brought by tbe plaintiffs,' as superintendents of tbe poor of tbe county of Delaware against tbe defendant, as overseer of tbe poor of the town of Oneonta, to recover for tbe support and maintenance of an alleged pauper, claimed to have been improperly removed from tbe town of Oneonta, Otsego county, to tbe town of Davenport, Delaware county, with tbe intent of making tbe county of Delaware chargeable with his support.

Tbe court, at General Term, after bolding that tbe plaintiffs bad failed to prove that they were superintendents of tbe poor of Delaware county, proceeded.

“ There was another difficulty in the way of a recovery in this action. The plaintiffs failed to show any legal expenditure of money for the support of the alleged pauper, or that be was legally supported as a pauper in the .county of Delaware. There was a poor-house in that county where paupers were by law required to be suppoiled. There is no question here, arising from the right of towns to afford, through their officers, temporary relief to paupers. Such relief was not afforded the pauper in this case. Besides, the superintendents of the poor of the county have no power to expend money for the temporary relief of. the poor. This right or duty devolves upon towns and their officers. Nor can the superintendents afford support to paupers elsewhere than

at the poor-house, or place provided for that purpose under the direction of the board of supervisors. These questions were discussed at length, and were determined in The People ex rel. Burfee v. The Commissioners of Emigration ( 27 Barb., 562 ). The pauper in this case was not supported at the poor-house iu Delaware county, and the plaintiffs had no authority to provide support for him elsewhere.

“ It is urged that the statute makes it the duty of the superintendents to give support to the pauper “ where he may be," and that here the latter was in the town and was there supported. The statute is that “ the pauper so removed, brought or enticed shall be maintained by the county superintendents of the county where he may be,” that is at the poor-house in such county, at which place only can these officers afford maintenance to the poor. The plaintiffs failed to establish a right of recovery. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs; and, as it seems, the respondent is entitled to double costs, inasmuch as the action was brought against a public officer.” (2 R. S., 617, § 24; Búrlele v. Luce, 1N. Y., 239; Bartley. Gilman, 18 id., 260.)