Case ID: me_33/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Shepley, C. J., orally.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Inhabitants of Kirkland versus The Inhabitants of Bradford.
    By the Settlement Act of 1821, a person, resident in a plantation, at the time of its incorporation into a town, thereby gained a settlement, notwithstanding that, within the next preceding period of five years, he had applied for and received supplies as a pauper in the same plantation.
    The plantation of Bradford had furnished relief in 1828, to one Cunningham, as a pauper. Afterwards, in 1831, the plantation was incorporated into the town of Bradford, at which time Cunningham had his home within its limits.
    In 1844, he fell into distress in the town of Kirkland, where he received supplies as a pauper from the overseers of the poor of that town. This suit is brought to recover for those supplies.
    The defence set up was, that Cunningham acquired no settlement in Bradford by having his home there at the time of its incorporation ; because, within five years prior to that time, he had received supplies as a pauper. The Judge ruled that, by having his home in Bradford at the time of its incorporation, the pauper acquired a settlement in that town.
    To that ruling the defendants excepted.
   Shepley, C. J., orally.

— The question of the settlement is .to be governed by the Act of 1821. The second section provides that “ all persons dwelling and having their homes in any unincorporated place at the time when the same shall be incorporated into a town, shall thereby gain a legal settlement therein.”

That enactment has no qualification as to supplies previously furnished.

But it is further urged that it is contrary to the current of authorities, that one, while a pauper, can be allowed to acquire a settlement in his own right. If such be the authorities, (and we have now no occasion to examine the question,) it is inapplicable in this case, for it has not appeared that Cunningham was a pauper at the time of the incorporation, though he had been previously.

Exceptions overruled.