1 D. Chip. 205 | Vt. | 1814
deliverered the opinion of the Court. The third section of the act, providing for the support of the poor, makes provision for the removal, to the place of his last legal settlement, of a person residing in a town, and who is likely to become chargeable to such town; such removal is to be made at the expense of the town, making the removal. The fourth section provides for the removal of a person resident in a,town, who, by reason of sickness cannot for a time be removed; and gives the town, incurring the charge of his maintainance, a remedy for the expense of the sickness, and also of the removal, if removed on recovery, against the town of such persons last legal settlement.
It has been well observed by the council for fhe defendant, that an action'will not lie at common law, against a town for the support of their paupers, by any other town ; and it is equally clear, that such action cannot be maintained on the general provision in the statute, declaring it to bé the duty of each town to support their own paupers, for the statute has pointed out, in what particular cases, they shall be liable to another town for their support, and what step, must be taken to render them liable. The declaration in this case does not come up to either of the cases provided for by the statute. It comes nearest to the case provided for by the eleventh section, but the case, as stated by the plaintiff’s counsel, is a case under the fourth section. The action cannot be supported ; there must, then, be a nonsuit. — Furrand and Hubbard, justices concurred.