Overseers of the Poor v. Overseers of the Poor

Unknown CourtMay 9, 1887

Plaintiff Win

Case Details

Judge(s): Clark, Gordon, Green, Mercur, Sterrett, Trunkey
Status: Published
Procedural Posture: appeal
State: Massachusetts

Related Laws

Outcome

The Industrial Accident Board's award of partial disability compensation to the employee, who lost two fingers in a workplace accident and suffered 25% reduction in earning capacity, was affirmed.

Excerpt

Error to tbe Quarter Sessions of Northumberland County to review a judgment confirming an order of removal of pauper. Reported below, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 377. This was an appeal of the overseers of the poor of the borough of Northumberland from the order of removal of Edward James Barry, a pauper. The facts as found by the court below were stated in the opinion of Rockeeeller, P. J., which was as follows: Edward James Barry, the pauper, was born in the borough of Northumberland on the 16th day of September, 1884. ITis parents were both foreigners, the father, Edward Barry, being a native of Wales, and his mother a native of England. They lived together as husband and wife in Northumberland at the time of the birth of their son. The mother died on the 24th day of January, 1885, and was buried by the overseers of the poor of Northumberland on the 26th. On the 21th the father left, and has not since been heard of. The mother of the pauper’s mother1 also resided in Northumberland, and upon her death took charge of the pauper, who was then about four months old. This mother of the pauper’s mother Avas married to one Peter Warters.. They were Arery poor and Avere obliged to ask for assistance. Finding work at Northumberland to be scarce they moved to Milton and took the pauper along with them. An order of relief Avas taken out and the pauper placed on Milton for support. The overseers of the poor of Milton took out an order of removal, and removed the pauper to the borough of Northumberland, from Avhich order the overseers of the poor of that borough appealed. Neither the pauper, his mother, father, nor grandmother ever had a settlement in Milton. [That borough contends that the pauper had at least a quasi settlement in Northumberland, if, in fact, he was not legally settled there by reason of his birth at that place; and that the burden of finding his legal settlement is on Northumberland and not on Milton.] The rule of course is th

What This Ruling Means

This 1887 case involved a dispute between different local government offices called "Overseers of the Poor" about where a man named Edward James Barry should receive public assistance. Barry was considered a "pauper" under the laws of that time, meaning he needed government help to survive. The disagreement centered on which local area was responsible for providing him with aid - essentially, which community had to pay for his support. The case went through the court system as an appeal, with officials from the borough of Northumberland challenging an order that would have required them to take responsibility for Barry's care. The matter appears to have been resolved through settlement, meaning the parties reached an agreement without a final court ruling. **What this means for workers:** While this case is very old and deals with 19th-century poverty laws rather than modern employment, it shows how legal disputes about government benefits and support systems have long existed. Today's workers who may need unemployment benefits, disability assistance, or other government programs should know that questions about eligibility and which agency provides help can still arise. The key difference is that modern workers have much stronger legal protections and more comprehensive support systems than existed in 1887.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Ohio Ct. App.Dec 2025

Disability, Ohio Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, Ohio Civil Rights Commission, substantially limits, physical impairment, constructive discharge, R.C. Chapter 4112, R.C. 4112.06(E), R.C. 4112.08, R.C. 4112.02(A), Adm. Code 4112-5-08(E), Adm. Code 4112-5-01, 42 U.S.C. 12102(4), 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(1)(i), earnings, back pay

Read Full Opinion All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check Your Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.