Skip to content

Robbinston v. Inhabitants of Lisbon

Inhabitants of Robbinston versus Inhabitants of Lisbon

Robbinston v. Inhabitants of Lisbon, 40 Me. 287 (1885)

Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · State Highest Courts
Decided: July 1, 1885
Judges: Appleton
Citations: 40 Me. 287

Cited by 2

Headnotes

Towns furnishing necessary supplies to persons falling into distress, who have their legal settlement in another town, may recover for such supplies, in an action commenced within two years after the expiration of two months, from the giving of said notice, where no answer is returned. But if an answer, denying their liability, is returned by the overseers of the town called upon, within the time prescribed by statute, then the action must be commenced within two years from the return of the answer, or it is barred.

Summary

On Facts Agreed. Assumpsit, to recover for supplies to paupers, alleged, to have their legal settlement in Lisbon. The plaintiffs paid for support of the paupers §134,GO for board from April 1, 1851, to April 1, 1852, and for board and other necessaries from April 5, to Aug. 23, 1852. This action was commenced on October 6, 1853. The overseers of Robbinston, on Sept. 18, 1851, notified the overseers of Lisbon, that the paupers had fallen into distress in their town, <fec. To this notice the overseers of Lisbon immediately replied, denying that the paupers had any settlement in Lisbon or that that town was in any way liable for their expenses. Other facts were admitted which it is unnecessary to state. The Court were authorized to render judgment according to the legal rights of the parties. contended that the action could not be maintained as more than two years elapsed, after the delivery of the notice, before the suit, and cited Uxbridge v. Seekonk, 10 Pick. 150; Belfast v. Leominster, 1 Pick. 126; Harwich v. Hallowell, 14 Mass. 184; Camden v. Lincolnville, 16 Maine, 384. The defendants gave an immediate answer, and the rule in Belmont v. Pittston, 3 G-reenl. 453, does not apply. Sanford v. Lebanon, 26 Maine, 461. B. Bradbury, for plaintiffs, relied in support of the action, on Belmont v. Pittston, 3 Maine, 453; Camden v. Lincolnville, 16 Maine, 384.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Appleton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Appleton, J.

It is held by this Court, in Belmont v. Pittston, 3 Greenl. 453, that an action cannot be maintained against the town in which the pauper has his settlement, by the town affording him relief, until the expiration of two .mouths after notice given pursuant to statute 1821, c. 122. This decision has been somewhat modified by the opinion of the Court in Sanford v. Lebanon, 26 Maine, 461, where it was held, if the answer of the defendant town is returned within the two months, that the suit may be forthwith commenced, notwithstanding that time has not expired. It follows from this, that the liability of the defendant town must then accrue. If, then, a liability to a suit arises upon the return of an answer, denying the settlement of the pauper, it is difficult to perceive why the limitation of two years, which is given bj the statute, does not attach at the same time and by the same act.

This action was commenced Oct. 6, 1853. The defendants were notified on Sept. 18, 1851,-that the paupers for whose relief this action is brought, had fallen into distress in the plaintiff town, and they looked to them for their sup"port. To this notice the defendants replied immediately, denying their liability. The word immediately, strictly construed, excludes all intermediate time. In Thompson v. Gibson, 8 Mees. & Wels. 281, the word immediately was held to mean “within such convenient time as is required for doing the thing.” If the notice was returned immediately, as the case finds it to have been, more than two years *289 must have elapsed since its return, and if so, the action can' not be maintained.

Plaintiffs nonsuit.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts2

Relies on it most ⓘ

Bailey Trading Co. v. Levy237 P. 408 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)
Gross Income Tax Department of Treasury v. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co.48 N.E.2d 834 (Ind. Ct. App. 1943)

Most recent

Gross Income Tax Department of Treasury v. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co.48 N.E.2d 834 (Ind. Ct. App. 1943)
Bailey Trading Co. v. Levy237 P. 408 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.