Municipal or county authorities are generally required by statute to furnish aid and support to paupers, although the enactments are far from uniform in their provisions. If, in a particular case, the proper authorities, after reasonable notice, fail to discharge their duty, any one may intervene and supply food, lodging, or other necessaries.1 But if notice is not first given to the authorities (see ante, Sec. 195), there can be no recovery,2 except, perhaps, for medical services rendered in an emergency.3 The case of one public corporation furnishing relief to a pauper for whose support another corporation is responsible is generally provided for by statute. It has been held that there is no common law liability to reimburse,1 but, fortunately, there is authority to the contrary.2

Pretzinger v. Pretzinger, 1887, 45 Ohio St. 452; 15 N. E. 471; 4 Am. St. Rep. 542. But see Kelly v. Davis, 1870, 49 N. H. 187 ; 6 Am. Rep. 499, (cf. Pidgin v. Cram, 1836, 8 N. H. 350, 353).

The obligation of the husband to pay for necessaries furnished his wife or children is fully considered in treatises on persons and domestic relations, and a further discussion of it in this book would be profitless.

1 Seagraves v. City of Alton, 1851, 13 111. 366; Randolph v. Town of Greenwood, 1905, 122 111. App. 23; Knight v. Fairfield, 1880, 70 Me. 500; Eckman v. Township of Brady, 1890, 81 Mich. 70; 45 N. W. 502 ; Shreve v. Budd, 1802, 7 N. J. L. 431; Trustees of Cincinnati Township v. Ogden, 1831, 5 Ohio 23. In some States recovery is denied, although authorities refuse relief, on the ground that the statute provides the sole manner in which the county may be made liable for support of the poor. Otis v. Strafford, 1839, 10 N. H. 352 ; St. Luke's Hospital Assn. v. Grand Forks County, 1898, 8 N. D. 241; 77 N. W. 598; Houghton v. Town of Danville, 1838, 10 Vt. 537 ; Patrick v. Baldwin, 1901, 109 Wis. 342; 85 N. W. 274; 53 L. R. A. 613. And see Miller v. Somerset, 1817, 14 Mass. 396.

2 Reynolds v. Board of Supervisors, 1881, 59 Miss. 132; Marshall County v. Rivers, 1906, 88 Miss. 45; 40 So. 1007; Duval v. Laclede County, 1855, 21 Mo. 396; Hamilton County v. Myers, 1888, 23 Neb. 718; 37 N. W. 623; Smith v. Williams, 1895, 13 Misc. R. 761; 35 N. Y. Supp. 236; Salsbury v. City of Philadelphia, 1863, 44 Pa. St. 303; Caswell v. Hazard, 1873, 10 R. I. 490.

3 County of Madison v. Haskell, 1895, 63 111. App. 657; Board of Supervisors v. Gilbert, 1893, 70 Miss. 791; 12 So. 593; Robbins v. Town of Homer, 1905, 95 Minn. 201; 103 N. W. 1023 ; Board of Com'rs v. Denebrink, 1907, 15 Wyo. 342; 89 Pac. 7; 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1234. And see Poor District of Summit v. Byers, 1887, 8 Pa. Cas. 222; 11 Atl. 242. But see, contra, French v. Benton, 1862, 44 N. H. 28; Gourley v. Allen, 1825, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 644; Caswell v. Hazard, 1873, 10 R. I. 490. Cf. Hendricks v. County of Chautauqua, 1886, 35 Kan. 483; 11 Pac. 450.

In statutes providing for the support of the poor, a liability for such support is often imposed upon children, parents, or other near relatives. Usually the procedure for enforcing this obligation is prescribed, but in the absence of a prescribed procedure the proper authorities may furnish the support and recover the value thereof from those upon whom the obligation rests.3