Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

be reviewed 329 and are not conclusive as against subsequent application.

1103. Place of support.

It is competent for poor districts to contract for the support of its paupers 330 and indigent sick 331 and the care of them by private individuals even though such a contract be prospective in its nature.332 Poorhouses or poor farms are usually provided however, and the public authorities have the power, if they so elect, to remove to these places those needing permanent care and relief.333 Where, however, it would endanger the health or the safety of a person, they may be required to maintain, temporarily, the pauper elsewhere.334 The expense of the support of the insane, of idiots or of the feeble minded, others non compos mentis or persons confined in reformatories and prisoners, must be paid for wholly by the state.335 By law, however, a certain portion of the

329 Ellison v. Harrison County, 74 Iowa, 494, 38 N. W. 372.

330 Board of Com'rs of Logan County v. McFall, 4 Idaho, 71, 35 Pac. 691; County of Macoupin v. Edwards, 15 Ill. 197; Hayford v Belfast, 80 Me. 315, 14 Atl. 287; Waltham v. Town of Mullally, 27 Neb. 483, 43 N. W. 252; Wimer v. Worth Poor Overseers, 104 Pa. 317; Kirk v. Brazos County, 73 Tex. 56, 11 S. W. 143; Houston v. Kimball, 22 Vt. 575; Baldwin v. Town of Worcester, 67 Vt. 285, 31 Atl. 413; Durfey v. Town of Worcester, 63 Vt. 418, 22 Atl. 609; Town of Leicester v. Town of Brandon, 65 Vt. 544, 27 Atl. 318. But see Lebcher v. Custer County Com'rs, 9 Mont. 315, 23 Pac. 713. Relative to validity of special contract. Rowell v. Town of Vershire, 63 Vt. 510, 22 Atl. 604. See, also, Polk v. Covington County, 77 Miss. 803.

331 Tucker v. City of Virginia, 4 Nev. 20.

332 Davenport v. Inhabitants of Hallowell, 10 Me. (1 Fairf.) 317.

333 Town of Bristol v. Town of Fox, 159 Ill. 500, 42 N. E. 887. A district chargeable with the support of a pauper residing elsewhere has the right to remove him against his will to its territory. Rawson Inhabitants of Uxbridge, 113 Mass. 47; Winchester v. Cheshire County, 64 N. H. 100, 5 Atl. 767; Rockaway Tp. v. Morris County Freeholders, 68 N. J. Law, 16, 52 Atl. 373; In re Connellan, 25 Misc. 592, 56 N. Y. Supp. 157.

V.

334 Aldrich V. Inhabitants of Blackstone, 128 Mass. 148; Board of Sup'rs of Rankin County v. Watson, 70 Miss. 85, 11 So. 632; Derry v. Rockingham County, 64 N. H. 499, 14 Atl. 866; Town of Plymouth v. Town of Haverhill, 69 N. H. 400, 46 Atl. 460. The same rule applies to a prisoner.

335 Watson v. Inhabitants of Cambridge, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 470; New Hampshire Asylum for Insane v. Belknap County, 69 N. H. 174, 44 Atl. 928. But see Schrorer v. Central Ky. Asylum for Insane, 24 Ky.

expense may be chargeable to the county or district from which a person was committed.33

336

§ 1104. Support; character; medical attendance.

Paupers are entitled to an adequate and necessary support which includes a sufficient quantity of wholesome food, reasonably healthful and comfortable quarters 337 funeral expenses 338 and the necessary medical attendance in case of sickness.339 The letter is ordinarily furnished by regularly employed physicians or upon an order of the proper officials,340 and where this is true, the

'L. R. 150, 68 S. W. 150. See, also, McNorton V. Val Verde County (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 653.

336 Inhabitants of Cooper v. Inhabitants of Alexander, 33 Me. 453; Inhabitants of Lewiston v. Inhabitants of Fairfield, 47 Me. 481; Inhabitants of Jay v. Inhabitants of Gray, 57 Me. 345; Smith v. Inhabitants of Lee, 94 Mass. (12 Allen) 510; City of Taunton v. Inhabitants of Wareham, 153 Mass. 192, 26 N. E. 451; Adams v. Inhabitants of Ipswich, 116 Mass. 570; State v. Cole County Ct., 80 Mo. 80; Merrimack County v. Concord, 39 N. H. 213; People v. Herkimer County Sup'rs, 46 Hun (N. Y.) 354; Kelly v. Multnomah County, 18 Or. 356, 22 Pac. 1110; Forest County v. House of Refuge, 62 Pa. 441. See, also, City of Alton V. Madison County, 21 Ill. 115.

337 Seagraves v. City of Alton, 13 Ill. 366; State v. West, 82 Tenn. (14 Lea) 38; Meier v. Paulus, 70 Wis. 165, 35 N. W. 301.

338 Inhabitants of Ellsworth v. Inhabitants of Houlton, 48 Me. 416.

339 Town of Bridgewater v. Town of Roxbury, 54 Conn. 213; County of Vermilion v. Knight, 2 Ill. (1 Scam.) 97; La Salle County Sup'rs v. Reynolds, 49 Ill. 186; Perry Coun

ty v. City of Du Quoin, 99 Ill. 479; Morgan County Com'rs v. Seaton, 90 Ind. 158; Cooledge v. Mahaska County, 24 Iowa, 211; Clay County Com'rs v. Renner, 27 Kan. 225; Inhabitants of Bucksport v. Cushing, 69 Me. 224; Allegany County Com'rs v. McClintock, 60 Md. 559; Wing v. Inhabitants of Chesterfield, 116 Mass. 353; Town of Montgomery v. County of Le Sueur, 32 Minn. 532; Lee County Sup'rs v. Gilbert, 70 Miss. 791, 12 So. 593; Jones v. De Soto County Sup'rs, 60 Miss. 409; Directors of Poor v. Donnelly (Pa.) 7 Atl. 204; Poor Dist. of Summit Tp. v. Byers (Pa.) 11 Atl. 242; Directors of Poor of Chester v. Malany, 64 Pa. 144; Putney Bros. Co. v. Milwaukee County, 108 Wis. 554, 84 N. W. 822. County commissioners have no authority to contract for medical services to cure a pauper of habitual drunkenness as a disease. See, also, Edson v. Town of Pawlet, 22 Vt. 291.

340 County of Fayette v. Morton, 53 Ill. App. 552; La Salle County v. Hatheway, 78 Ill. App. 95; Gaston v. Marion County Com'rs, 3 Ind. 497; Jefferson County Com'rs v. Rogers, 17 Ind. 341; Bartholomew County Com'rs v. Ford, 27 Ind. 17; Board of Com'rs of Warren

value of medical services rendered by others cannot be recovered.341 Expenses may be incurred by private persons in caring for paupers and these may be recovered from the proper district when notice, if any, has been given as provided by law and the person to whom assistance was given is a legal charge upon public bounty.342

County v. Osburn, 4 Ind. App. 590, 31 N. E. 541. The authority from a township trustee for a physician to treat a poor person need not be in writing. Board of Com'rs of Perry County v. Lomax, 5 Ind. App. 567, 32 N. E. 800. A skilled surgeon may be employed to perform an operation where the regular physician lacks the necessary ability. Cooper v. Howard County Com'rs, 64 Ind. 520. Contract between county commissioner and physician.

Collins v. Lucas County, 50 Iowa, 448; Overseers of Poor of Windham v. City of Portland, 23 Me. 410; Boothby v. Inhabitants of Troy, 48 Me. 560; Bentley v. Chisago County Com'rs, 25 Minn. 259; St. Luke's Hospital Ass'n v. Grand Forks County, 8 N. D. 241, 77 N. W. 598; Beach v. Town of Neenah, 90 Wis. 623, 64 N. W. 319. The question of an agreement to pay for services of a physician rendered to a pauper family is for the jury. But see Clinton County v. Pace, 59 Ill. App. 576. A county is liable for necessary services rendered by a physician where prompt action is required without notice to or permission from the overseers of the poor.

341 Mitchell v. Tallapoosa County, 30 Ala. 130; Scobey v. Town of Manteno, 56 Ill. App. 336; De Witt Coun. ty v. Wright, 91 Ill. 529; Bartholomew County v. Boynton, 30 Ind. 359; Robinson v. Morgan County

Com'rs, 91 Ind. 537; Morgan County v. Seaton, 122 Ind. 521, 24 N. E. 213; Mansfield v. Sac County, 59 Iowa, 694; Bean v. Inhabitants of Jay, 23 Me. 117; Goodrich v. City of Waterville, 88 Me. 39, 33 Atl. 659; Hamilton County v. Meyers, 23 Neb. 718, 37 N. W. 623; French v. Benton, 44 N. H. 28; Flower v. Allen, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 654; St. Luke's Hospital Ass'n v. Grand Forks County, 8 N. D. 241, 77 N. W. 598; Campbell v. Grooms, 101 Pa. 481. But see Johnson v. Santa Clara County, 28 Cal. 545; Clinton County v. Pace, 59 Ill. App. 576; Carroll County Com'rs v. Wilson, 1 Ind. 478; Washburn v. Shelby County Com'rs, 104 Ind. 321. See, also, Morgan County Com'rs v. Johnson, 29 Ind. 35.

342 Condon v. Pomroy-Grace, 73 Conn. 607, 48 Atl. 756; Town of Fairfield v. Town of Easton, 73 Conn. 735, 49 Atl. 200; Eshelman v. Clinton County, 88 Ill. App. 566; Scott v. Winneshiek County, 52 Iowa, 579; Speedling v. Worth County, 68 Iowa, 152; Cunningham v. Town of Frankfort (Me.) 12 Atl. 636; Perley v. Inhabitants of Oldtown, 49 Me. 31; Knight v. Inhabi tants of Ft. Fairfield, 70 Me. 500; Carter v. City of Augusta, 84 Me. 418, 24 Atl. 892; Phelps v. Inhabitants of Westford, 124 Mass. 286; Eckman v. Brady Tp., 81 Mich. 70, 45 N. W. 502; Reynolds v. Alcorn County Sup'rs, 59 Miss. 132; Com'rs of Rouse's Estate v. Directors of

§ 1105. Right to services.

Public authorities are entitled to the services of paupers to the extent and in the manner in which they can be performed without endangering the life and health of the persons.343 They may rightfully be employed in manual or other labor in and about a poor house, farm or asylum or wherever they may be kept, or, in the case of minors, bound out to serve as apprentices or servants.3

345

§ 1106. Corrective institutions.

344

It is the sovereign duty of the state to adopt measures having for their purpose the prevention of crime and the punishment or reformation of the criminal. This power is based upon the well recognized function to protect the lives and property of persons within its jurisdictions.346 As a means of punishment or reformation, the state, or its subordinate agencies to which is given the right expressly or by implication, may construct and maintain

Poor of McKean County, 169 Pa. 116, 32 Atl. 541; Wolcott v. Town of Wolcott, 19 Vt. 37; Stone v. Town of Glover, 60 Vt. 651, 15 Atl. 334; Tufts v. Town of Chester, 62 Vt. 353, 19 Atl. 98; Town of Woodstock v. Town of Bernard, 67 Vt. 97, 30 Atl. 806; Walbridge v. Walbridge, 46 Vt. 617; Mappes v. Iowa County Sup'rs, 47 Wis. 31; Patrick v. Town of Baldwin, 109 Wis. 342, 85 N. W. 274, 53 L. R. A. 613. But see Seagraves v. City of Alton, 13 Ill. 366; State v. Gold, 140 Ind. 699, 40 N. E. 55; O'Keefe v. Northhampton, 145 Mass. 115, 13 N. E. 382; Smith v. Williams, 13 Misc. 761, 35 N. Y. Supp. 236; Brazee v. Stewart, 59 App. Div. 476, 69 N. Y. Supp. 231; Caswell v. Hazard, 10 R. I. 490; Macoon v. Town of Berlin, 49 Vt. 13.

343 Inhabitants of Clinton v. Inhabitants of Benton, 49 Me. 550; Abbot v. Town of Fremont, 34 N. H. 432.

844 Sawyer v. Aldag, 45 Ill. App. 77. A superintendent of a poor farm has no right to imprison a pauper upon his refusal to perform physical labor in the absence of rules to that effect prescribed by the proper county authorities. Com. v. Inhabitants of Cambridge, 45 Mass. (4 Metc.) 35; Billings v. Kneen, 57 Vt. 428.

345 Demar v. Simonson, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 132; Curry v. Jenkins, 3 Ky. (Hardin) 501; Inhabitants of Oldtown v. Inhabitants of Falmouth, 40 Me. 106; Board of Sup'rs of Lowndes County v. Leigh, 69 Miss. 754, 13 So. 854; Dyer v. Hunet, 5 N. H. 401; Glidden v. Town of Unity, 33 N. H. 571; Commonwealth v. Coyle, 160 Pa. 36, 28 Atl. 576, 634, 24 L. R. A. 552; Welborn v. Little, 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 263.

346 French v. State, 141 Ind. 618, 41 N. E. 2, 29 L. R. A. 113. It is constitutional for the legislature to

penitentiaries, prisons, jails, workhouses or other places of confinement 347 and reformatories or training schools for youthful violators of the law or those convicted of the commission of lesser offenses.348 Rules of good order and discipline may be adopted and enforced and those confined required to perform constant manual labor. These regulations may be enforced by the public authorities for the better efficiency of the system 349 and no liability can arise because of the negligence of the state or its agents either in the selection or acts of officers,350 the construction or condition of buildings or the use of machinery.351 The rule also ob

pass an act designating certain state officials as a board for the selection of prison directors.

347 Peters v. State, 9 Ga. 109; Richardson v. Clarion County, 14 Pa. 198.

348 Roth v. House of Refuge, 31 Md. 329; Farnham v. Pierce, 141 Mass. 203, 6 N. E. 830; State v. Brown, 50 Minn. 353, 52 N. W. 935, 16 L. R. A. 691; State v. Pike County, 144 Mo. 275, 45 S. W. 1096; Cincinnati House of Refuge v. Ryan, 37 Ohio St. 197. See, also, McLean County v. Humphreys, 104 Ill. 378.

349 City of St. Louis v. Karr, 85 Mo. App. 608. But an ordinance is unconstitutional which, under the guise of enforcing a rule of discipline, will result in the confinement of a prisoner in the city workhouse beyond the maximum period prescribed by the charter.

350 Wilson v. City of Macon, 88 Ga. 455, 14 S. E. 710; Hollenbeck v. Winnebago County, 95 Ill. 148; White v. Sullivan County Com'rs, 129 Ind. 396, 28 N. E. 846; Pfefferle v. Lyon County Com'rs, 39 Kan. 432, 18 Pac. 506; Zollikoffer v. Havemeyer, 4 T. & C. (N. Y.) 478; Clodfelter v. State, 86 N. C. 51; Watkins v. County Ct., 30 W. Va. 657, 5 S. E. 654.

351 Payne v. Washington County, Abb. Corp. Vol. III―31.

25 Fla. 798; Morris v. Switzerland County Com'rs, 131 Ind. 285, 31 N. E. 77. Action by one confined for impairment of health on account of its bad condition. The court say: "As the state is not liable for the acts or omissions of its officers, neither should a political subdivision of the state be liable for the acts or omissions of its officers as relating to political powers. Prisons are constructed and maintained as one of the instruments of and as a means for the purpose of carrying out the police power of the state, and the duty of constructing and maintaining them is imposed upon the counties by the state."

Kincaid v. Hardin Co., 53 Iowa, 430, 5 N. W. 589; Green v. Harrison Co., 61 Iowa, 311, 16 N. W. 136; Lindley v. Polk County, 84 Iowa, 308, 50 N. W. 975; Hite v. Whitley County Ct., 12 Ky. L. R. 764, 15 S. W. 57; Lewis v. State, 96 N. Y. 71; Moody v. State's Prison, 128 N. C. 12, 38 S. E. 131, 53 L. R. A. 855; Manuel v. Cumberland. County Com'rs, 98 N. C. 9, 3 S. E. 829. No liability where plaintiff while a prisoner contracted a disease of the lungs on account of insufficient bedding and warmth during cold weather.

Davis v. Knoxville, 90 Tenn. 599,

« AnteriorContinuar »