Case ID: mass_19/html/0607-01.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 East Bridgewater versus The Inhabitants of Bridgewater.
    A person having a settlement on the part of Bridgewater which remains Bridgewater, removed into the part which is now East Bridgewater, and would have gained a settlement there by owning a freehold, if that part had been then a separate town. Held, that his settlement was in Bridgewater, under St. 1823, c. 31, incorporating East Bridgewater, which provides that all persons who may hereafter become chargeable as paupers to Bridgewater or East Bridgewater, shall be considered as belonging to that town, on the territory of which they had'their settlement at the time of passing the act.
    The following facts appeared in a case stated.
    Eliphalet Leach was born in 1786, in that part of Bridge-water which by St. 1821, c. 12, was established as a separate town by the name of North Bridgewater. Nathan Leach, the father of Eliphalet, had his original settlement in the part which is now Bridgewater. In 1777 he removed into what is now North Bridgewater, where he has continued to reside ever since, owning real estate and paying taxes sufficient to give him a settlement there, previous to Eliphalet’s coming of age, provided he could acquire a new settlement in the same town. Eliphalet resided with ms iatner as one of his family, until 1807, when he (Eliphalet) removed into that part of Bridgewater which by St. 1823, c. 31, was established as a town by the name of East Bridgewater, where he has lived ever since. After coming of age, and for more than ten years successively, he was the owner of an estate of freehold in what is now East Bridgewater, of more than the yearly income of ten dollars, taking the rents and profits for the whole of that time.
    If these facts showed the settlement of Eliphalet Leach to be in Bridgewater, the defendants were to be defaulted; otherwise the plaintiffs were to become nonsuit.
    The decision of this question depended on the construction to be given to the following clause of St. 1823, c. 31, § 3, viz. “ And all persons who may hereafter become chargeable as paupers to the said town of Bridgewater or East Bridgewater, shall be considered as belonging to that town, on the territory of which they had their settlement at the time of passing this act, and shall in future be chargeable to that town only.”
    Brown, for the plaintiffs,
    relied on Princeton v. West Boylston, 15 Mass. R. 257, and Dalton v. Hinsdale, 6 Mass. R. 501.
    
      W. Baylies, for the defendants,
    cited Southbridge v. Charlton, 15 Mass. R. 247.
   The Court held, on the authority of the cases cited for the plaintiffs, that the original settlement of Nathan Leach was not lost by' his removing into what is now North Bridge-water ; and that Eliphalet derived a settlement from his father, which he did not lose by removing into what is now East Bridgewater.

Defendants defaulted. 
      
      
        Bridgewater v. West Bridgewater, 9 Pick. 55 ; 2 Dane’s Abr 414 ; North Bridgewater v. East Bridgewater, 13 Pick. 303.