Case ID: nh_1/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Woodbury, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE TOWN OF HANCOCK versus THE TOWN OF HAMPSTEAD.
    Before the statute of January, A. D., 1796, a legitimate child, who was more than seven years old, and whose father was dead, could, by a year’s residence in a town, acquire a settlement in its own right. His settlement was not affected by having a guardian : nor was he within the proviso of the statute as to “education,” if hired to labour under a parole contract.
    THIS was an action of assumpsit, for relief furnished to the wife and children of H. P. Wadleigh. The cause was tried here upon the general issue, at the last April term.
    It was proved that in A. D., 1787, the father of H. P. Wadleigh, having a settlement in Hampstead, died, and that the son was then ten years old. For the six ensuing years H. P. Wadleigh continued to reside in Hampstead, with his guardian. But in A. D., 1793, by the consent of the guardian, though without any indentures, he removed to Sutton, and there continued till twenty-one years old, to labour on a farm with his brother. A verdict was taken for the plaintiffs, subject to be set aside or affirmed, as the court might think that H. P. Wadleigh, upon the facts, had a settlement in Sutton or Hampstead.
    
    
      J. Walker for the plaintiffs.
    
      Noyes and J. Smith for the defendants.
   Woodbury, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

Our decision in Nottingham vs. Bow supersedes an ell-quiry into some of the points presented by this case. II. P. Wadleigh, when Jiving in Sutton, was more than 7 years old, and therefore able to gain a settlement in his own right It has always been held, in the English books, , . , , ,' . ... that a child, after the above age, whether legitimate or ule-gitimate, may either by service or apprenticeship acquire a new settlement. — D. & E. 116, King vs. Inh. of Off Church. — Burns Jus. 311, (11 th ed.)

The contests there have been, whether the child, when not having gained a settlement in its own right, follows the new settlement obtained by its parents. But it is unnecessary to state what would be our opinion had the father of Wadleigh been living when the son resided in Sutton. For he, having been dead some years, the son was released from parental controul. ’Tis true, he had a guardian ; but a guardian, though in loco parentis as to a few purposes, has no absolute controul over the person or services of the ward, unless the ward be a lunatick. Nor is there any obligation on the part of either to support the other. A guardian may be appointed during the life of the parents : but it was never suggested that the child’s settlement would thus be affected. Nor is it material whether the ward can in common cases be removed from the guardian ; for a person’s being irremovable will not prevent him from getting a settlement under our statutes, if he is emancipated and not warned out within a year, nor embraced within some part of the proviso H. P. Wadleigh, however, was not warned out of Sutton, nor was he within any part of the proviso, unless sent there “ for education” But he did not go to school — nor was he bound by indentures to a trade. It is not necessary to decide whether working in the employment of husbandry would in any case come within the above exception; because it is well settled, in relation to the other point, that a binding out is invalid for the purpose of gaining a settlement, unless the contract be in writing The re-sou¡ t00¡ por tilese decisions seems satisfactory ; for without such indentures the legal controul over the child's person is . i i not changed.

The paupers, therefore, are settled in Sutton; and the .. verdict must be set aside.

Let the plaintiff's become nonsuit. 
      
      <i) 3 a™, j. 308, “ Poor set-tiemmt mtk p&
      
     
      
      
        <2) 3 J>- *t E®J;7r3 s" c'4oL
     
      
      
        ^ Mr->
      
     
      
      
         7M-R-3-
      
     
      
       Nottingham vs. Bow, ante.
     
      
       Lyndeboro v. Milford, Hills. 1807— 3 D. & E., 353, Kings vs. The Inhab. of Edgeworth: 5 Mod. 328 - Burns Jus. Poor Set. Burr. S. C. No. 94, 102, 104, 173, &c.