Case ID: mass_14/html/0310-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

* The Inhabitants of Hardwick versus The Inhabitants of Raynham.
    Where one, before the 10th of April, 1767, had hired a house, but before the removal of his family into it had gone abroad, and in his absence his family removed into it, and were not warned to depart within twelve months from such removal, he gained a settlement in the town in which such house was situate.
    Assumpsit for the support of a pauper, alleged by the plaintiffs to have her legal settlement in Raynham.
    
    By an agreed statement of facts, submitting the action to the decision of the Court, it appeared that the pauper, Densa Pres ho, derived her settlement from her great-grandfather Peter Presho, who had his settlement in the town of Raynham in November, 1765 ; and the said Densa had her settlement in that town, unless the said Peter, by the following facts, after that time acquired a settlement in Taunton.
    
    In November, 1765, the said Peter hired of one Benjamin Lincoln house in said Taunton, with a view to remove his family thither as soon as the circumstances thereof would admit, (his wife being then far advanced in pregnancy, and having been delivered of a child in December following,) and at the same time contracted with one Field to remove his family to the said hired house in Taunton as soon as their circumstances would permit. The said Peter then went on a voyage to Egg Harbor, in the province of New Jersey, to make shingles. The said Field, in pursuance of said contract, on the 28th of January, 1766, removed the said Peter’s wife and children to his said hired house in Taunton. The said Peter, while residing at Egg Harbor, addressed a letter to his wife in Taunton, and afterwards, in August or September, 1766, returned to his family, then residing in the said house ; and after-wards built a house in said Taunton, which belonged to his wife, and continued to dwell therein for eight or ten years, until his death, neither himself nor his family having been at any time warned to depart.
    If, upon the foregoing facts, the Court should be of opinion that the said Peter Presho gained a settlement * in the town of Taunton, the plaintiffs agreed to be- [ * 364 | come nonsuit; otherwise the defendants agreed to be defaulted, and that judgment should be rendered against them for a sum specified.
    
      Bigelow, for the plaintiffs.
    By the laws in force prior to April, 1767, “ If any person or persons came to sojourn or dwell in any town, and remained three months, [afterwards extended to twelve months,] not being warned to depart, he or they thereby gained a settlement in such town.” 
      Peter Presho did not go to Taunton to sojourn or dwell before August, 1766. There were not, then, twelve months in which he could be warned to depart. He could not be warned while residing at Egg Harbor, and a warning to his wife and children in his absence would have been without effect. The whole question of settlement resting in him, the warning must necessarily be to him personally.  If left at the residence of his family, in a place where he had never dwelt, it could never have been truly said to be left at his last and usual place of abode.
    
      Hastings, for the defendants,
    contended that within the equity of the provincial acts, the residence of Peter Presho in Taunton commenced on the removal of his family thither in January, 1766. From that time he had lost his habitancy in Raynham, was taxable in Taunton, and must have been named as of Taunton in any legal process. A warning left at the place of abode of his family would have been sufficiently executed. Had his family removed without his approbation or consent, the effect might have been different; but the removal in this case was his own act. He recognized Taunton as his home, by addressing a letter to his family there; and, indeed, it was to all intents his domicile or home. 
    
    
      
      
        Prov. L. 4 W. M. c. 12. —12 and 13 W. 3, c. 10. — Jinc. Charters, &c. 251
    
    
      
       3 Mass. Rep. 322, Shirley vs. Watertown.
    
    
      
       4 Mass. Rep. 312, Ahington vs. Boston.
    
   Parker, C. J.

The question to be decided in this case is, whether Peter Presho, the grandfather of the pauper, had gained a settlement in Taunton, by having resided there one year before the 10th of April, 1767 ; it being agreed that neither he nor his family were warned to depart from that town.

*It appears that, on the 28th of January, 1766, he had caused his family to be removed from Raynham to Taunton, where he had some months before hired a house, with intent to remove and dwell therein ; that he himself, before the removal of his family, had left Raynham, without any intention to return thither, and having, in fact, no domicile there, after he commenced his excursion to New Jersey; that, when he returned, he came to Taunton, to his family, and not to Raynham; and that he continued to live in Taunton for eight or ten years, during which lime he built a house there, which he occupied with his family.

Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that, within the intent and meaning of the law then in force, he came to reside in Taunton when he changed his domicile and removed his family to that place. He must be considered as having left Raynham,, and given up his settlement, when he went abroad ; having before that time provided a new habitation in Taunton, and intending to return to and to make his final home at that place.

Had legal process, for any cause, issued against him, it could not have been served by leaving a summons or a copy at his former dwelling-house in Raynham, as his last and usual place of abode; for where his family dwelt was his house, and his absence could not render it less his domicile. A warning by Taunton, left at the house occupied by his family in that town, would have been sufficient to prevent his acquiring a settlement there, and to exonerate them from the obligation to support him or his family, although he had not personally come to reside there.

The removal of his family was an act of notoriety sufficient to put Taunton on its guard; and not having warned him or his family, that town must be considered as having adopted him as an inhabitant. We think his residence commenced, constructively, at Taunton on the 28th of January, 1766, when the house he had hired began to be occupied, according to his views and inten tians when he contracted for it. The plaintiffs must * therefore be called, and the defendants have judgment for their costs.

Plaintiffs nonsuit.