Case ID: mass_21/html/0121-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Inhabitants of Sutton versus The Inhabitants of Dana.
    A pauper whose settlement in a town was acquired in a part which was afterwards incorporated into a new town, but whose home at the time of the division was in the other part, was held not to have a settlement in the new town.
    Upon a case stated it appeared, that Paul Chase, a pauper, was born in that part of Greenwich which is now Dana, in 1769. His father lived, and in 1772 died, in the same part of Greenwich, having then a settlement in Greenwich. The pauper, on his father’s death, went to live in what is now Greenwich, first with Jeremiah Powers, and afterwards with Isaac Powers, making his home there till 1804, except that he sometimes, during that period, made his home in other places out of the limits of Greenwich. He never resided, after the death of his father, in the part of Greenwich which is now Dana.
    Dana was incorporated by St. 1800, c. 50, which contains a provision respecting paupers, substantially like the first clause of the paragraph in St. 1793, c. 34, prescribing the tenth mode of acquiring a settlement.
    Sibley, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Bigelow and Brooks, contra, relied on 4 Mass. R. 278; ibid. 384; 7 Mass. R. 156; 15 Mass. R. 254; 1 Pick. 144, [2d ed. 147, n. 1.]
   The Court held that the pauper b 1 not a settlement in Dana.

Plaintiffs nonsuit.