« ПретходнаНастави »
all such indigent persons requiring medical or surgical care and treatment to the nearest hospital, the incorporation and management of which have been approved by the state board of charities provided transportation to such hospital can be safely accomplished. The charge for the care and treatment of such indigent persons in such hospitals, as herein provided, shall not exceed one dollar per day for each person, except that in the counties of Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk a charge of not to exceed two dollars per day may be made therefor, which shall be paid by the several counties or towns from which such persons are sent, and provision for which shall be made in the annual budgets of such counties and towns. (As amended by chapter 309 of the Laws of 1912.)
Settlement and Place of Relief of Poor
Section 40. Settlements, how gained.
41. Qualification of last section.
42. Poor persons not to be removed, and how supported. 43. Proceedings to determine settlement.
44. Hearing before superintendents.
45. How to compel towns to support poor persons.
48. Decisions to be entered and filed.
49. Appeal to the county court.
50. Penalty for removing.
51. Proceedings to compel support.
52. Liability, how contested.
53. Neglect to contest.
54. Actions, when and how to be brought.
55. Penalty for bringing foreign poor into this state. 56. Poor children under sixteen years of age.
57. Recovery from pauper who has property.
$ 40. Settlements, how gained. Every person of full age, who shall be a resident and inhabitant of any town or city for
one year, and the members of his family who shall not have gained a separate settlement, shall be deemed settled in such town or city, and shall so remain until he shall have gained a like settlement in some other town or city in this state, or shall remove from this state and remain therefrom one year. A minor may be emancipated from his or her father or mother and gain a separate settlement:
1. If a male, by being married and residing one year separately from the family of his father or mother.
2. If a female, by being married and having lived with her husband; in which case the husband's settlement shall be deemed that of the wife.
3. By being bound as an apprentice and serving one year by virtue of such indentures.
4. By being hired and actually serving one year for wages, to be paid such minor.
Where a man abandons his family and remains absent from them for more than ten years, and during that time his wife receives no information respecting him, and it appears that once before he deserted his family and was absent three years, and at the time of his last abandonment he was in good health, and there was then a warrant outstanding for his arrest, the facts do not warrant a presumption of his death, so as to enable the wife to obtain a new settlement and make the support of herself and children a charge upon another town than that in which they lived at the time of the husband's disappearance. County Court, Onondaga county, June, 1911, Town of Van Buren v. Syracuse, 72 Misc. 463.
The provisions of the Poor Law relating to gaining a settlement in a city or town are not limited in their application to poor persons.
Minors who reside with their father for more than a year in the same town, in a county in which the several towns support their own poor, gain a settlement in that town; and where, after removing to a new town in the same county and before gaining a settlement there, they require and receive relief as poor persons, the expense of their relief is chargeable to the town from which they removed.
The question of the propriety of giving relief is confined to the discretion of the poor authorities and, if they grant relief, it is presumed they have made such investigation as they deemed necessary and have determined the right of the party examined to such relief. County Court, Otsego county, August, 1911, Matter of Chamberlain, 73 Misc. 256.
Where residents of a town not poor persons within the statute remove to another town in the same county and receive aid there within a year from the time of their removal, the expense is chargeable to the town from whence they came. County Court, Wayne county, June, 1910, Matter of Porter, 68
Support furnished by a town or city, to a poor person who, within a year, has received public assistance at his place of legal settlement in this state, is chargeable to such place of settlement. Supreme Court, June, 1909, Onondaga Co. v. City of Amsterdam, 64 Misc. 181, 139 App. Div. 877, 883; 140 id. 916.
The place of birth of an infant pauper is, prima facie, his place of settlement, but it may be removed to the last legal settlement of the parents when discovered. Supreme Court, August, 1819, Overseers of Vernon v. Overseers of Smithville, 17 Johns. 89; and see, al30 Supreme Court, August 1817, Delavergne v. Noxon, 14 Johns. 333; Supreme Court, October, 1826, Overseers of Berne v. Overseers of Knox, 6 Cow. 433; Supreme Court, February, 1824, Niskayuna v. Albany, 2 Cow. 537.
If it does not appear that one has gained a settlement in his own right, his settlement follows that of his father.
But a change in the settlement of the father will not affect that of the son, if the father's settlement is obtained after the emancipation of the
To acquire settlement by apprenticeship, the servant must be under an indenture, or a deed, contract or writing not indented; a parole binding is not sufficient.
The place of birth is, prima facie, the place of settlement; but if the father's settlement be in another place, the settlement of the child follows his. Supreme Court, February, 1824, Overseers of Niskayuna v. Overseers of Albany, 2 Cow. 537.
A father, who has acquired a legal settlement in a town, cannot by any deed, release or act of emancipation, divest his son, who has not arrived at 21 nor acquired a settlement for himself, of his right of settlement derived from his father, though the son, since such deed of emancipation, had not resided in his father's family, but had acted in all things for himself and worked entirely for his own benefit. Supreme Court, January, 1823, Adams v. Foster, 20 Johns. 452.
Until a poor person acquires a settlement in his own right, his settlement is that of his father or mother. Supreme Court, January, 1889, Stillwell v. Kennedy, 51 Hun, 114.
Italian laborers, who come to the United States in search of work, leaving their families in Italy, are employed in constructing railroads, liable to be discharged at any time, and free to leave their employment when they see fit and living in rough shanties built by the railroad contractors, do not gain a settlement in a town in which they work for a year, under 3 Rev. Stat. (Banks' 8th ed.) p. 2111, § 29, providing that every person of full age, who shall be a resident and inhabitant of any town one year," shall be deemed settled in said town. Schuyler County Court, July 15, 1893, In re Town of Hector, 24 N. Y. Supp. 475. See Queens County Court, August, 1895, Smith v. Williams, 13 Misc. 761; S. C. 69 St. Rep. 611.
The overseer is the sole judge as to who are paupers in his town, and should be relieved by him, and the exercise of that power cannot be reviewed collaterally either in the supreme court or by the town auditors. Supreme Court, 1890, Christman v. Phillips, 58 Hun, 282; S. C. 34 St. Rep. 444.
The town is charged with the support of the poor when there is no action taken by the supervisors to abolish the distinction between town and county
poor. The city stands under the Poor Law in the place of the town. Supreme Court, May, 1888, Nuns v. L. I. City, 48 Hun, 306.
A person living on and working a farm on shares for two years or more gains a settlement. Supreme Court, October, 1817, Overseers v. Overseers,
14 Johns. 365.
An estate situate in a town without residence there, does not gain the owner a settlement in that town. Supreme Court, May, 1819, Sherburne v. Norwich, 16 Johns. 186.
A bastard child is settled in the town where it was born until it acquires a settlement for itself. Supreme Court, August, 1817, Delavergne v. Noxon, 14 Johns. 333.
A person cannot gain a settlement in any town until he shall have resided there for at least one year, whether such person be a pauper or not. When a settlement is once legally gained in any town it must necessarily remain there until one is subsequently established in some other town or county. Montgomery County Court, March, 1882, Sitterly v. Murray, 63 How. Pr. 367.
An adjudication as to the settlement of paupers for whose relief expenditures have been incurred by a town, may be made subsequent to such expenditures. Supreme Court, May, 1829, People v. Supervisors of Oswego,
2 Wend. 291.
The question of settlement cannot be tried in an action on a bond given to indemnify the town for the support of a bastard; the obligor is estopped by his bond from contesting that question. Supreme Court, August, 1806, Falls v. Belknap, 1 Johns. 486.
If a pauper having no settlement, be removed to another town to relieve the overseers from the burden of supporting him, and the overseers of the town to which he is removed are compelled to support him, the latter may recover by an action for reimbursement, against the overseers of the town which improperly removed him. Supreme Court, October, 1818, Pittstown v. Plattsburgh, 15 Johns. 436.
An overseer or superintendent of the poor who finds a pauper in his county or town, has no right to remove such pauper to another town or county where he believes he belongs; but he must provide for the pauper and then pursue the remedy afforded by the laws. Supreme Court, July, 1883, Smith v. Brundage, 17 Weekly Dig. 266.
A day laborer, who supported his family in one county, until immediately after moving into another county he becomes disabled and a county charge, is not a pauper as intended by the statutes. Supreme Court, January, 1889, Wood v. Simmons, 51 Hun, 325; S. C. 21 St. Rep. 390; 4 N. Y. Supp. 368.
Rev. St. N. Y. pt. 1, tit. 1, c. 20, § 59, as amended by chap. 546, L. 1885, provides that, when a pauper strays or is removed from one municipality to another, the county superintendents of the poor shall give the overseers of the poor of the pauper's town notice of such improper removal, and require them to take charge of the pauper. Held, that a notice which does not state that the pauper was a pauper while in the town from which he came, nor that his voluntary change of residence was improper was insufficient. Supreme Court, June 22, 1889, McKay v. Walsh, N. Y. Supp.
358; S. C. 2 Sil. 463.
It is not necessary that a written denial of responsibility for the sup
port of pauper by an overseer or superintendent should follow the exact language of the statute. Court of Appeals, October 7, 1890, Stillwell v. Coons, 122 N. Y. 242; affirming s. c. 12 St. Rep. 745.
Appeal is debarred from an order of removal which has not been executed owing to the death of the pauper. Supreme Court, January, 1823, Adams v. Foster, 20 Johns. 452.
Though an overseer abandons the appeal from an order of removal and takes back the pauper, yet the unreversed order is not conclusive evidence of settlement in the appellate town. Supreme Court, August, 1819, Vernon v. Smithville, 17 Johns. 89. See also Supreme Court, February, 1824, People v. Supervisors of Cayuga County, 2 Cow. 530.
On appeal from an order of removal of a pauper, the order is evidence of the facts it contains; but the respondents are bound to begin de novo; and make out their case independent of the order. Supreme Court, February, 1827, Otsego v. Smithfield, 6 Cow. 760.
The sessions may allow costs on appeals to them, from orders of removal. Supreme Court, May, 1806, Newburgh v. Plattekill, 1 Johns. 330.
The force of an order requiring a relative to pay a certain sum per week to the county superintendent of the poor, for the support of an alleged dependent poor person, until the further order of the court, is terminated by the termination of the person's dependency upon the public for support, as, by a discharge from the poorhouse followed by self-support; the doctrine of res adjudicata does not preclude the defendant, against whom such an order has been made, from setting up such a defense. Court of Appeals, January 26, 1897, Aldridge v. Walker, 151 N. Y. 527; reversing S. C. 82 Hun, 614.
A widow with children, who has a little personal property and is sick and unable to work, and whose husband's funeral expenses were paid by the town, and who has received aid from the town without objection from the overseer, is a poor and indigent person, within the meaning of the statute against the removal of poor persons from one town or county to another, with the intent to charge such town or county with their support. Supreme Court, November 22, 1892, Barlett v. Ackerman, 49 St. Rep. 296; S. C. 66 Hun, 629.
The individual, under whose roof a poor person dies, is bound to carry the body, decently covered, to the place of burial. Supreme Court, October, 1896, Griffin v. Condon, 18 Misc. 236; S. C. 41 N. Y. Supp. 380.
Where a man and his wife resided for some years in Cattaraugus county, when they removed to Chemung, where the wife became insane and was taken to the asylum in Cattaraugus county, and the husband then moved to Buffalo and procured his wife's discharge and took her to his home, but shortly afterwards he took her back to the asylum, it was held, that when the wife was removed from the asylum, she ceased to be an insane pauper, that the husband acquired a settlement in Erie county, and his settleinent became that of his wife, and an action for her support at the asylum could be maintained against Erie county. Supreme Court, January 18, 1893, Superintendent of Cattaraugus v. Superintendent of Erie, 50 St. Rep. 347; S. C. 66 Hun, 636.
The residence of a person who has left the State of New York and becomes indigent is not determined by section 40 of the Poor Law.