Edwards v. Branch, 52 N.C. 90, 7 Jones 90 (1859)

Dec. 1859 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

52 N.C. 90, 7 Jones 90

ZEDEKIAH EDWARDS v. WM. J. BRANCH.

An order, made by the wardens of the poor of a county, that a particular sum should be allowed and placed in the hands of A, payable semi-annually for the benefit of a pauper, was Held repealable within the time of the first half year, although A had proceeded under such order, to purchase provisions for the whole year, and, that he was only entitled to one half-yearly instalment.

This was a motion for a peremptory mandamus, tried before Shepherd, J., at the last Fall Term of Franklin Superior Court.

A petition was filed in the Superior Court for an alternative mandamus, which accordingly issued, and the defendant having been served therewith, made return to the same, and the cause coming on, upon the pleadings and proofs, it appeared that, on the 8th of December, 1856, an application -was made to William Branch and others, wardens of the poor for Franklin county, for a provision for one Lucy Adcock, a pauper, resicfent in said county, when the following order was made : “Dec. 8th, 1856, the case of Lucy Adcock was considered, and the sum of $75.00 was allowed and placed in the hands of Zedekiah Edwards, payable semi-annually, and an order directed to issue for the same.”

Afterwards, another order issued on the 9th of March, 1857, as follows: “ On motion, the case of Lucy Adcock was considered, and the order directed to issue in her favor, Dec. 8th, 1856, was rescinded.” ■

Evidence was then offered, that on the 8th of Dec. 1856, the wardens agreed with Edwards, the petitioner, that bo should furnish his sister, Lucy Adcock, with provisions, and they would pay the allowance to him of $75.00, one half in June, and accordingly he made a purchase for her, and the wardens paid him for one half the year, but refused to pay after the order was rescinded, of which notice was given to Edwards, but not until he had bought provisions for the year.

The petitioner further offered evidence that he had bought provisions for Lucy Adcock during the year, all at one time, and he insisted that his undertaking was a contract which he had a right to enforce against the wardens of the poor, for the whole year, 1857, or until December. It was agreed that the Court might try all the questions, whether of law or fact, without submitting issues to a jury, and the Court haying heard and considered the whole case, refused the peremptory mandamus, being of opinion that the allowance of $75.00 was a mere charity, which might be revoked at any time by the wardens, and gave judgment for. the defendants; whereupon the petitioner prayed for and obtained an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Soloman, for plaintiff.

Davis and W. F. Oreen, for defendant.

■Manly, J.

The administration of the fund provided by the public authorities for the support of the poor, is committed, in North Carolina, to a court of wardens. By reference to the chapter of the Revised Code, upon the subject, it will be perceived that the court is invested with a large discretion in the application of the fund. Thus, the objects of the public bounty, the periods of enjoyment, the several amounts to be allotted, the manner of their application — whether by means of public institutions, or directly to the needy in their respective homes, are all matters left to the discretion of the wardens, and with the exercise of this discretion, no court has a right to interfere. The wardens are authorised to appoint a secretary and treasurer; they are required to keep a record of proceedings and accounts of receipts and disbursements, and to publish the same annually, and are triennially subject to be deposed by the appointing power. These are the only safe-guards the law has thought proper to provide for the effective and equitable distribution of the public charity; and the courts are not allowed to interpose by way of mandamus in aid of these checks, and by dictation secure what may be supposed a more equitable and efficient application. We think, therefore, the court of wardens, after the passage of the order of the 8th of December, 1850, had a right to repeal it at any time without giving legal cause of complaint-to the pauper; subject, nevertheless, to the rights of third parties, with whom contracts may have been made under the order in question. The point, then, upon which this petition turns, is whether there was any unfulfilled contract on the part of the wardens with the petitioner, Edwards, in relation to the support of Lucy Adcock. Under the order of December, 1850, it seems from the facts transmitted to the tkrnrt, that an agreement was made between the wardens and the petitioner “ that he should furnish his sister, Luey Adcoeh, with provisions,. and the wardens would pay the allowance of $75 to him, one-half in June? The wardens paid $37.50 for the first half year; but in the mean time, having repealed the order, they refused to pay for the other half year; and the question is whether the words of the agreement constitute a contract between the wardens and the petitioner for the entire year’s provision. We think no such engagement is to be inferred from the words. It is in substance a promise, merely, to pay at the end of six months $37.50 for provisions furnished to the woman in the mean time, and does not amount to a pledge of its continuance beyond that term. It seems to have been the purpose of the wardens to prevent a wasteful consumption of the means set apart for the woman’s use, and hence they stipulate that the provisions shall be paid for semi-annually, and by consequence, as we think, furnished in semiannual instalments. The purchase of the whole year’s provision by Edwards, and furnishing them at once was a misinterpretation of the engagement, and a misconception of the obligations and rights. The order of the court of wardens is for a semi-annual allowance to Lucy Adcock of $37.50. This the wardens could repeal at any time in the exercise of their discretion. But any contract made with petitioner Edwards, for laying out and applying this amount, could not be set aside or repealed; but might be enforced by the writ of mandamus. The extent of the contract between them, as we interpret it, is to make to Edwards half yearly payments of $37.50 for provisions furnished for the sister. As there is no stipulation for its continuance through any particular period of time, it is a contract which either might discontinue at his option, at the end of the half year.

The contract thus interpreted, has been fulfilled by the wardens, and therefore, the writ of mandamus is refused. It is a writ extensively and stringently remedial, and ought not to be resorted to in light, trivial, or dubious cases.

Motion for a peremptory mandamus overruled with costs against the petitioner.

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.