Case ID: me_16/html/0058-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Inhabitants of Bloomfield vs. Inhabitants of Skowhegan.
    In the act incorporating a portion of an old town into a now one, it was provided, that those, who should afferwards become chargeable to the towns as paupers, should be considered as belonging to that town, “ on the territory of which, they had their settlement at the lime of the passing of this act, and shall in future he chargeable to that town only a pauper had gained a settlement in the old town at its incorporation, by residing therein on that part of it made into the new town, but when the new town was incorporated, had removed into a different part of the old town, and there remained until this territory was incorporated into a third town; the pauper, who had never gained any settlement unless by those acts of incorporation, was held to have a settlement in the second town, under the special provision in the act of incorporation.
    Fhom the statement of facts agreed by the parties, it appeared, that Susan Ireland, the pauper for whose support the action was brought, was the legitimate child of Jonathan Ireland, who was the legitimate son of Abraham Ireland. Abraham Ireland resided in the town of Canaan, at the time of its incorporation in 1789, in that part of it which is now Bloomfield, and gained a settlement there by the act of incorporation. Jonathan Ireland had a settlement derivatively from him. Before Bloomfield was incorporated, Jonathan Ireland removed into that part of Canaan now Skowhegan, and died there in 1812 without ever having been in a condition to gain a settlement in his own right. The family of Jonathan Ireland, including the pauper, remained in the same place until after the incorporation of Milburn, now SJcowhegan, in 1823, but the pauper has never gained a settlement in her own right, unless by the incorporation of Milburn. Bloomfield and SJcowhegan were wholly taken from Canaan. In the act incorporating Bloomfield, in 1814, was the following provision. “ Be it further enacted, that the said town of Bloomfield shall be holden to support their proportion of the poor of the town of Canaan which are now chargeable to said town, which proportion shall be ascertained by the present valuation of the town; and all persons who may hereafter become chargeable as paupers to the said towns of Canaan or Bloomfield shall be considered as belonging to that town, on the territory of which they had their settlement at the time of the passing of this act, and shall in future be chargeable to that town only.” The only question submitted was, in which town was the settlement of the pauper.
    
      Tenney argued for the plaintiffs,
    and cited Settlement act of Massachusetts, 1791, second and tenth modes ; Great Barrington v. Lancaster, 14 Mass. B. 255; Windham v. Portland, 4 Mass. II. 390; IlalloweM v. Bowdoinham, 1 Greenl. 129.
    
      Kidder argued for the plaintiffs,
    and cited the act passed in 1814, incorporating the town of Bloomfield, and Princeton v. West Boylston, 15 Mass. II. 384.
   By the Court.

The settlement of the pauper is derived from her father, Jonathan Ireland, who derived his settlement from Abraham Ireland, his father. The settlement of Abraham was in that part of Canaan, which is now Bloomfield, ft does not appear, that the grandfather, father or daughter subsequently obtained any settlement elsewhere. Jt is very clear then, that by the act incorporating Bloomfield, the derivative settlement of the paupers remains in that town.

Plaintiffs nonsuit.