Farmer v. Town of Salisbury

Frank E. Farmer v. Town of Salisbury

Farmer v. Town of Salisbury, 59 A. 201 (Vt. 1904)

Court: Supreme Court of Vermont · State Highest Courts
Decided: November 25, 1904
Judges: Haselton, Powers, Rowell, Start, Tyler, Tyuír, Watson
Citations: 59 A. 20177 Vt. 1611904 Vt. LEXIS 106

Cited by 0

Headnotes

Poor Persons — Relief — Physician's Services — Liability of Town — Promise of Overseer — Consideration. A town is not liable for medical services rendered a poor person prior to notice thereof to the overseer, although the overseer, when so notified, promised, in behalf of the town, to pay for such services, and they were rendered in the expectation that the town would pay for them. In such case there is no consideration for the promise, and such services do not inure to the benefit of the town. When, in an interview in behalf of the plaintiff, who was rendering medical services to a poor person, defendant’s overseer used language from which plaintiff’s representative understood, and had a right to understand, that defendant would pay plaintiff’s entire bill, defendant is liable for such services rendered after the overseer’s promise, and in reliance thereon.

Summary

General Assumpsit. Trial by court at the June Term, 1904, Addison County, Munson, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff to recover his entire bill. The defendant excepted. In respect of Dyer’s interview with the overseer the court found: “That Dyer saw the overseer in behalf of the plaintiff on Feb. 15; that the overseer then used language from which Dyer understood, -and had a right to understand, that the town would assume the payment of plaintiff’s bill for this sickness; and that Dyer shortly after communicated this to the plaintiff.” The overseer cannot bind the town to pay a poor person’s debts incurred before application for aid. The town itself .could not vote to do sol Spafford v. Norwich, 71 Vt. 71; Sheldon et ctl. v. Bennington, 67 Vt. 580. It is not necessary that an application for relief should be made in order to bind the town. Weston v. Wallingford, 52 Vt. 630; Waldon v. Cabot, 25 Vt. 522; Blodgett v. Lowell, 33 Vt. 174.

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

Opinion of the Court — Tyuír

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

Tyuír, J.

It was found by the court below that Mrs. Dauber, who was living with her husband, in defendant town, was very sick, also very poor and in need of assistance, and that Mr. Joy, her neighbor, requested the plaintiff, who was a physician residing in Middlebury, to visit Mrs. Dauber and promised to pay him for that visit. The plaintiff made the visit February 3, 1903, and then informed Joy that the woman would require attendance for a long time. Joy declined to be further responsible, and by his advice the plaintiff saw one Dyer, another neighbor, who1 tried to communicate by telephone with the defendant’s overseer of the poor, but failing to do so advised the plaintiff to1 continue his visits, saying that he would see the overseer about the matter, but he did not see him until February 15th, when he had an interview with him in the plaintiff’s behalf. The overseer then used language from which it is found that Dyer understood and had a right to understand that the town would assume payment of the plaintiff’s charges and that he so informed the plaintiff. The court found that after the first visit, which was charged to Joy, the plaintiff rendered his services in the expectation that the town would pay him, and *163 that after Dyer’s report to him, in relimee upon such payment.

It is apparent that the overseer undertook to assume payment of the plaintiff’s entire bill, but there was no consideration Jor the promise to pay for the services rendered prior to February 15th. They were not rendered upon the overseer’s promise to pay and did not inure to the defendant’s benefit, therefore the defendant is not liable for them, but is liable for the charges made after that date.

Judgment reversed, and judgment for the plaintiff to recover the amotmt of his bill exclusive of the charges made prior to February 15, ipoj.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list