36 Conn. 83 | Conn. | 1869
In August, 1864, after the call by the Presi
At that meeting the following vote was passed:
“Voted, to pay the volunteer and drafted men two hundred dollars each. And also to pay those who volunteer, are drafted, and enter the service, or furnish substitutes before or after the draft, who shall be mustered into the service of the United States in their stead, each four hundred dollars, provided they apply on the quota of this town, under the present call for five hundred thousand men.”
Very soon after the passage of that vote the plaintiff enlisted as a volunteer and was mustered into the service of the United States and applied on the quota of the town under the call referred to. At the time of such enlistment the plaintiff was a settled inhabitant of the adjoining town of Kent, but at that time and for several months previous thereto he was and had been residing in the town of Warren, at work for a citizen of that town.
Upon these facts the plaintiff obtained a decree for the bounty and interest • against the town, and the town by a motion in error brings the case before us for revision.
The error relied upon is, that “ the vote was void, because the purpose was not specified in the warning. The warning confined the grant to citizens of the town. The vote purported to give it to all, whether citizens or not, and the petitioner was not a citizen of Warren.” This is the point made by the respondent’s counsel, as it appears upon their brief. It is sharply technical, and is untenable. It involves the proposition that under the warning the town had no power to vote, a bounty to any one who should enlist unless he was a citizen of the town.
The power of the town to pass the vote under the warning, (if not otherwise questionable,) could not be questioned, but
For these reasons we think there is no error in the decree and so the Superior Court is advised.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.