Case ID: me_3/html/0229-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mellen, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Inhabitants of Turner vs. The Inhabitants of Buckfield.
    By tlio words “dwells and has hishomeS’in Stat. 1821, ch. 122, sec. 2, the legislature meant, to designate same permanent abode, or residence with an intention to remain, or at least without any intention of removing.
    
      .Assumpsit for supplies furnished to one Esther Smith, a pauper, whose settlement was alleged to be in Buckfield.
    
    At the trial in the Court below, before Whitman C. J. it was agreed that the pauper, who was then about 24 years of age, had her settlement in Buckfield, derived from her father, unless she had gained a new one by having her domicil in some other place at the passage of the act. of March 21, 1821 ; — that she removed with her father from Buckfield to Turner in March 1813, and. resided with him there till his death in April 1814 ; — that she continued to reside in Turner, in different families, except two Or three months’ residence in Hebron, till the spring of 1816, from which time, till Jlugust 1818, she lived in the family of Eleazcr Snell, in Turner ; — that at the last mentioned date she removed, with her bed, into the family of Samuel Jenkins, jun. her sister’s husband, in Buckfield, she being then pregnant with an illegitimate child, of which she was delivered in Jlpril following ; — that she removed in Nov. 1819, with the family oí Jenkins to Hebron, and there continued, except working a few weeks in /Turner, till the last of October IS20 ; — she then went to her brother’s house in Hartford, where she remained till Dec. 13, 1820; — then to John Keen’s house in Turner, till about Feb. 7, 1821 ; — thence to her brother’s in Hartford ; — that she again went to Jenkins’ the last of February or early in March, and returned again to her brother’s on the 26th day of March, having sold her bed to Mrs. Jenkins, in whose care she left her child ; — that she remained two nights at her brother’s, and then went to a house in Turner for about eleven days, and thence to another family in Hartford, where she remained till July following, and thence to Turner, where she resided in different families till Sept. 1822, when she became chargeable.
    
      Jenkins testified that he never considered her as having a home at his house after October 1820 ; and that at that time, and during the winter following, she removed from his house her bed clothes, trunk, and wearing apparel, leaving her bed, which was after-wards sold to his wife.
    Hereupon the counsel for the defendants contended — 1st. That underthe provisions of Stat. 1821, ch. 122, the pauper had her settlement in Hebron, her home being in that town at the time of passing the act; the manifest intent of which was to fix the settlement of every citizen of the State, not within its exceptions.
    2. If not, — then by the same statute her settlement is in Turner, that being her home during the life of her father, she being then a minor ; and by a fair construction of the statute that home continued till she gained a new one.
    
      3. That the pauper not being in Buckfield at the time of passing the act, she must under the statute have acquired a settlement either in Hartford, Turner, or Hebron; in one of which towns she was at the time of its passage.
    The Judge, upon this evidence, which was admitted by the parties tobe true, was of opinion that the pauper had no home within the meaning of the act, on the 21st oí March 1821, and so instructed the jury ; who returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and the defendants fded exceptions pursuant to the statute in such cases provided.
    
      Greenleaf and Porter for the plaintiffs.
    
      Fessenden and Brown for the defendants.
   Mellen, C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court, as follows.

It appears by the bill of exceptions, that the pauper has now her settlement in Buckfield, derived from her father, unless since she became of age she has gained a settlement in her own right, (t is contended she gained one in Hebron, in virtue of the statute of 1821, ch. 122. The clause in that act, which the defendants’ counsel relies upon, is in these words ; — “ any person, resident “ in any town, at the date of the passage of this act, (.March 21, “ 1821) who has not within one year, previous to that date, “ received support or supplies from some town as a pauper, shall be deemed to have a settlement in the town, where he then 4‘ dwells, and has his home.” Numerous questions have arisen in different parts of the State, depending on the construction to be given to the provisions of the above quoted clause. Some of those questions we have already decided. The question in the present case is, what is meant by being resident in a particular town, on the 21st of March 1821, and there dwelling, and having a home. In many instances, it may be an inquiry of great nicety, and difficult of solution, and perhaps no general principle can be established beforehand, embracing all cases. And of course each cause must be decided on its own particular facts. Our present inquiry is, whether the pauper, in the case before us, resided, dwelt, and had her home, in the town of Hebron, on the day the act passed. We must give a reasonable construction to the words of the law, and proceed on the ground that the legislature intended, by the use of the expression, “ dwells and has his home,” to designate some permanent abode, a residence with an intention to remain, or at least without an intention of removal,— something more than the habits and life of a wanderer, who has no place where he has a right to continue, and call it and claim it as his rightful home. In the present case, we do not deem it necessaiy to be more definite and explicit. Our decision is confined to the facts before us; and from a review of those facts,we are clearly of opinion, that the pauper can, in no legal sense, be considered as dwelling and having her home in Hebron, on the 21st of March 1821. It is true, she was in that town on that day and had been for a few days before, and for five days after. But there are no facts in the case, indicating a permanent residence or home there, but on the contrary, she seems to have been wandering from town to town, for years before the law was passed, and for months after ; having no settled place of abode, but floating about in society, in that course, which friendship and sympathy directed. We are of opinion, that such a residence, as this was in Hebron, could never have been intended by the legislature, as a dwelling and home in Hebron; and the consequence is, she gained no settlement in that town, by virtue of such occasional, and as it were momentary residence. The provision of the statute does not embrace such a case as hers, and therefore her settlement in Buckfield still continues. We overrule the exceptions, and affirm the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.