(DOWNLOAD) "Hinckley v. Town Barnstable" by Supreme Court of Minnesota # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Hinckley v. Town Barnstable
- Author : Supreme Court of Minnesota
- Release Date : January 28, 1942
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
COX, Justice. This is a petition in equity brought in the Probate Court to require the respondent to repay money paid by the petitioner for old age assistance rendered to his testatrix during her lifetime. The petition alleges, among other things, that the money was paid under the mistaken belief that the petitioner was obliged to pay it, but that, as matter of law, he was not. The respondent admits that the petitioner paid the money, and alleges that from the amount that it received it has paid the Federal government and the Commonwealth $565.33, in accordance with the law and statutes in such case made and provided. The decree ordered the respondent to repay the sum that the Judge found had been paid to it for old age assistance rendered under the provisions of G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 118A. The respondent appealed. The Judge made a report of material facts, G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 215, § 11. He found that old age assistance was rendered and that, after the petitioners appointment as executor, the town officials, relying upon G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 117, § 5, demanded reimbursement and threatened to bring suit against the petitioner if he did not pay. The petitioner thereupon petitioned the Probate Court for license to sell real estate for $5,250, and, after consulting counsel as to the liability of the estate for the amount of old age assistance furnished, paid the respondents claim. The officials of the respondent in making the claim for reimbursement, relied upon an opinion of the Attorney General to the effect that the town could recover for such old age assistance, and this opinion was shown to the petitioner and his counsel, and payment was then made by the petitioner. When the respondents claim was presented and paid, there had been no judicial determination brought to the attention of the parties as to whether the respondent could legally claim reimbursement under said c. 118A. After the decision in the case of City of Worcester v. Quinn, 304 Mass. 276, 23 N.E.2d 463, 125 A.L.R. 707, the petitioner demanded repayment of the sum he had paid, and, upon payment being refused, he brought this petition. The Judge found that the mistake made was not purely a question of law, but was a mutual mistake of fact as well as of law, and that the payment was not a voluntary one, but that the petitioner acted as any ordinary prudent man would have acted under the circumstances.
 "Hinckley v. Town Barnstable" by Supreme Court of Minnesota # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}