Case ID: ohio_3/html/0092-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Judge Hitchcock:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Trustees of Jefferson Township, Adams County, v. The Trustees of Letart Township, Meigs County.
    A minor obtains a settlement in the township where his father was legally settled, and can by no act of his own, whilst a minor, obtain a legal settlement elsewhere.
    This was' an action of debt under the statute, in which a verdict was given for the plaintiffs, and a motion made fora new trial, on the following state of facts :
    In September, 1823, the parents of the pauper resided and had a legal residence in Lebanon township, in Meigs ^county. At this time the father died, and the mother, with her children, went to reside with her father in Lebanon township, where she remained until July, 1824, when she married again and removed with her children, except the.pauper, and with her husband, into Virginia.
    In April, 1824, the pauper being about seventeen years of age, left his mother and went into Letart township, where he remained, working for his support, until October, 1825, when he left that township. In December, 1826, he came into Jefferson township, Adams county, where he was taken sick and became a township charge. Upon his recovery, in March, 1827, he was sent by the trustees of Jefferson township to Letart township, and a demand made for the expenses incurred in taking charge of him and his removal. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the motion was made for a new trial, the decision of which was adjourned by the Supreme Court, sitting in Meigs county.
    Nye, in support of the motion :'
    It is confidently insisted, for the defendants, that the pauper gained no settlement in Letart township; his settlement was in Lebanon. “The settlement of a child is where the father was last settled; if the father has none, the child must go to the settlement of the mother.” 17 Johns. 91; Overseers of Niskayuna v. Overseers of Albany, 2 Cow. 537.
    The settlement of the mother, in this case, after the death of Samuel Jackson, her husband (the father), followed his, in Lebanon. 17 Johns, supra; Ohio Rev. Laws, 332, sec. 4. The pauper not being sui juris, could not, it is apprehended, gain a settlement in any other township except by an apprenticeship, created or evidenced by indenture. The act concerning apprentices and servants, Rev. Laws, 381, sec. 2, provides for the apprenticing, by indenture, of destitute children, and those of poor persons, by the trustees, etc., males till twenty-one years of age. The act for the relief of the poor, Rev. Laws, 333, sec. 6, contains a similar provision. There is good reason in such cases why a regular apprenticeship should be required to give a settlement to a minor; it is an authoritative act of the officers acting for the township; and the service extends to the period of legal emancipation, when *the minor becomes capable to contract for himself. In the case of The King v. The Inhabitants of Margram, 5 Term, 153, it was held, that a service of seven years as an apprentice, without an indenture, did not gain the pauper a legal settlement, either as an apprentice or as a yearly servant. In the case before the court, there was not even a contract for hiring and service in Letart, nor a proposition to remain with Smith, for any definite time, for victuals and clothes. And it appears clear that the legislature (so far as enactments affect the question), in providing for the case of an “ indentured servant,” intended to distinguish his from that of a “ person,” sui juris; and to require a year’s service in the township, under an indenture, to gain a settlement.
   Opinion of the court, by

Judge Hitchcock:

This action was brought by the plaintiffs to recover the amount of moneys expended in the support and removal of Edmund Jackson, a pauper, charged to have been legally settled in the township of Letart. It is different from the case of Wayne v. Stock Township, decided at the present term, in one particular. In that case the pauper is supposed to have been of full age ; in this he is admitted to have been an infant under the age of twenty-one years. Whether this can make any difference, or whether such an individual can by his own residence, merely, gain a legal settlement, is tho point to be determined.

Section 4 of the act for the relief of the “poor,” speaks df any person or persons,” etc., in general terms without reference to age or sex. Intended servants, legally brought into tho state, and married women, are expressly provided for, but nothing is said about infants or children. It is perhaps a misfortune that the statute is not more explicit. Still we apprehend there is no difficulty in arriving at-the intention of the legislature. We have no doubt it was understood and intended that the legal settlement of children should follow that of their parents. It is not believed that by the word “ person,” as used in this section of the statute, any other person was intended than such as have arrived at the years of discretion. Such as, so far as age is ^concerned, were capable in law of contracting and being contracted with. Such as have a legal right to remove from place to place, and were free from the superintending control and guardianship of others.

To prove the correctness of this construction of the statute nothing more is necessary than a consideration of the absurdity to which we should be held by a different decision. If the legal settlement of tho child does not follow that of the parent, it might and frequently would so happen that the legal settlement of the child would be in one place, while that of a parent would be in another. And a case might be presented where there are many children that the settlement of the parent and each one of the children would be in separate and distinct townships. Will it be fora moment believed, that such is the policy or meaning of the law ? If such is the law, children of the same family, in their tender years, may be separated from their naturaL guardian, the parent, and from each other, and a statute which is entitled, “an act for the relief of the poor,” may be made to operate most oppressively upon'that class of the community.

An examination of the other parts of the same section 4 of the act will tend to fortify the construction of the court, “ any person or persons residing one year in any township in this state without being warned,” etc. Now the warning presupposes that the person warned has a legal power or right to leave the township. But what right has an infant to remove ? Does the law authorize such an individual to abandon or leave his father ? The parent is bound, both by the laws of nature and the laws of the land, to provide for and take care of his infant child, and in return is entitled to the services and control of the child. This right is so perfect that, unless in extraordinary cases, it can not be interfered with. Let it not be said that this is one of those extraordinary cases. The legislature have not, in 'this section of law, undertaken to interfere as it respects the relative duties and rights of parent and child. It must be remembered that the overseers of the poor are not to wait until a person becomes chargeable before they warn him to depart. The apprehension that he may at some future period become chargeable, is sufficient to justify, nay, to require of them the performance of this duty. If, then, the warning presupposes a *right in the individual concerned to remove from the township, it follows, of course, that an infant can not with propriety be warned, because the infant has no legal right to remove, where such removal would separate him from or place him beyond the control of his natural guardian. Inasmuch, then, as the overseers of the poor can not with propriety warn an infant to depart the township, it would be unjust to say that the infant by residence, merely, shall gain a legal settlement.

In the case before the court, the pauper, it is -true, alj the time he went to reside in the township of Letart, had no father living. This, however, can not vary the case. Samuel Jackson, the father, was last legally settled in the township of Lebanon. In virtue of the settlement, Edmund Jackson, the son, was legally settled in the same place. By no length of residence in any other township, previous to arriving at the age of twenty-one, could he gain any other legal settlement. Having been reduced to poverty during his infancy, the township of Lebanon was chargeable with his support.

Under this construction of the statute, the-question reserved must be decided in favor of the defendants, and in pursuance of the terms of the agreed case, the verdict of the jury must be set aside and judgment entered against the plaintiffs.