more than the amount of the claim, deducting the amount so improperly included-Held, that a judgment vacating the whole audit was proper, as it could not be ascertained what amount of the illegal claim was allowed, or whether the deduction was made therefrom, or from the items which the board had judisdiction to audit. Id.

Also held, that assignees of the overseer stood in the same position with and were bound by the result reached in respect to him. Id.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, a corporation organized under the laws of this state, for the care, education and support of poor orphan children, to recover the amount due it for supporting certain children between the age of two and sixteen years, residents of Long Island City, and whom it had received, cared for and supported, on the authority of written orders given by the overseer of the poor of the defendant city.

Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, as it had acted under the direction of an officer who had full power to give such direction, and who was compelled by law to furnish the support for such children outside of the poorhouse, and in an incorporated orphan asylum.

That, as the relief of the children was permanent and not temporary, the ten dollar limitation imposed by section 42 of 2 Revised Statutes (7th ed., p. 1861), did not apply to them. Supreme Court, May, 1888, Nuns of St. Dominick v. Long Island City, 48 Hun, 306.

The overseer of the poor cannot incur a liability beyond the $10 for relief in a single case without the consent of one of the superintendents of the poor. But with this restriction, his power of giving temporary relief is independent of the control of the superintendents of the poor. Cayuga Circuit Court, November, 1851, Gere v. Supervisors, 7 How. 255.

Supreme Court, April, 1867, In re Robbins v. Woolcott, 66 Barb. 71, the court said: By section fifty-one it is provided that in those counties where there are no county poorhouses the overseers of the towns shall enter in books an account of all matters transacted by them relating to their official duties; of all moneys received by them; of all moneys laid out and disbursed by them.

"By section fifty-two these books must be laid before the board of town auditors, with an account of moneys received and paid out. The board is required to compare such accounts with the entries in the book; examine the vouchers, and audit and settle the same; and state the balance due from such overseers, or to them, as the case may be. No credit shall be allowed to any overseer for moneys paid, unless it shall appear that euch payment was made pursuant to a legal order. It seems to have been supposed that the account of the overseer must be audited and allowed before he can be paid. But clearly this cannot be the meaning of the section. The money for the support of the poor, whether it is paid into the county treasury and paid out by the superintendent, or is paid over to the overseer, is raised in advance of the expenditure, and is, or is supposed to be, in the hands of the treasurer or overseer. The overseer presents his account to the board of auditors, so as to determine, not what he shall be paid, but whether he is entitled to keep what he has taken. It is not true, doubtless, that in all instances the money required is actually in his hands. He may issue orders or make contracts when there are no

funds with which to pay. He must render an account of these also, and in such case the board audits before payment; and if he receives the money allowed for such expenditures it is in order to pay debts actually due to himself, or to other persons holding the orders, or to whom he is liable for support rendered upon a contract made with him. If an overseer, under such circumstances, should charge for moneys paid, or claim allowance for liabilities incurred, which had no existence in fact, and obtain the money, he would be guilty of fraud."

§ 30. Hospital accommodations for indigent persons. 1. Any city or county, in which a hospital duly incorporated is situated, may send to and support, in the same, such sick and disabled indigent persons as require medical or surgical treatment, and when admitted the authorities of such city or county shall pay to the directors of such hospital such sum per week as may be agreed upon or found to be just during the period in which such person shall remain in such hospital.

2. In all counties of this state in which there are not adequate hospital accomodations for indigent persons requiring medical or surgical care and treatment, or in which no appropriations of money are made for this specific purpose, it shall be the duty of county superintendents of the poor, upon the certificate of a physician approved by the board of supervisors, or of the overseers of the poor in the several towns of such counties, upon the certificate of a physician approved by the supervisor of the town, as their jurisdiction over the several cases may require, to send 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 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.

ARTICLE 4

Settlement and Place of Relief of Poor
Persons

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.
46. Proceedings to determine who are county poor.
47. In counties without alms-house.

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 reniain 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.

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.

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, also 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

son.

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, 6 N. Y. Supp. 358; 2 Sil. S. C. 463.