Case ID: me_73/html/0111-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peters, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The same question was presented to the court in Inhabitants of Brooksville vs. Inhabitants of Bucksport.
    Hancock.
    Opinion March 30, 1882.
    Assumpsit for pauper supplies furnished one John IT. Webber.
    
      C. J. Abbott, for the plaintiff.
    
      O. P. Cunningham, for the defendant.
   Peters, J.

The brief of the defendants’ counsel admits that judgment must go for the plaintiffs, unless the doctrine be established, that an emancipated minor can gain a settlement for himself by residence in a town for five consecutive years. The statute expressly prevents such a thing. “ A person of age, having his home in a town five successive years . . . has a settlement therein.” R. S., c. 24, § 1, mode 6. This does not permit a person of non-age to do so. And it was so judicially declared in Veazie v. Machias, 49, Maine, 105.

It has frequently been said, speaking generally, that a minor who has been emancipated may acquire a legal settlement in his own right, and the statement without qualification is misleading. He may acquire a settlement in his own right under certain mo.des and-conditions, but not in all the modes prescribed by statute for acquiring settlements, and not by residing in a town continuously for five years.

Defendants defaulted.

Appleton, C. J., Barrows, Virgin, Libbey and Symonds, JJ., concurred.