Case ID: mass_14/html/0328-01.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 Boston versus The Inhabitants of Wells.
    To gain a settlement in the fourth method described m the statute of 1793, c. 34, § 2, a citizen must dwell m the town the same three years that he holds therein an estate of freehold of the prescribed value.
    This was an action of assumpsit for the reimbursement of sundry expenses, incurred by the plaintiffs in the relief and support of one Rachel Webster, whose settlement they allege to be in Wells.
    
    At the trial, which was had upon the general issue, before Wilde, J., at the last February term in this county, the only question was, whether the legal settlement of the said pauper was in the town of Wells, or in the town of Lyman.
    
    The defendants,
    to prove her settlement to be in Lyman, read in evidence a deed of bargain and sale of a small farm in said Lyman, from one Chadbourn to Nathaniel Webster, the father of the pauper’s husband; and it was admitted that the pauper had a derivative settlement in said town of Lyman, provided the said Nathaniel gained a settlement there; otherwise her settlement was in Wells.
    
    It was also admitted that the annual rents and profits of said farm, after said Nathaniel purchased it, exceeded ten dollars. It was also proved that the said Nathaniel received the rents and profits of the said farm for three successive years; and he testified that he lived on the farm three years and seven days. But he afterwards testified, in another deposition, that he removed into Lyman November 1, 1798; and on the 28th of October, 1801, he sold the same farm; and he finally removed from Lyman November 12, 1801.
    The plaintiffs insisted that the said Nathaniel Webster never gained a settlement in Lyman, as he sold his estate before he had resided there three years complete. But the judge instructed the jury that, if they were * satisfied that he had received all the rents and profits for throe complete years before he made sale of his farm, he thereby gained a settle-
    
      ment in Lyman, although he had not, at the time of the sale, resided the entire term of three years in said town ; and the jury accordingly returned a verdict for the defendants. If the said instruction was wrong, the verdict was to be set aside, and a new trial had ; otherwise judgment was to be rendered for the defendants for their costs.
    An argument was had, at the last March term in Suffolk, by Thatcher for the plaintiffs, and Richardson for the defendants.
    
      Thatcher
    
    admitted that Nathaniel Webster was the owner of the »aid farm from the 19th of October, 1798; so that, in fact, he was the owner of the estate, and he resided in Lyman for more than three years. He contended, however, that, by a true construction of the statute, those three years should be coincident; otherwise a person may be acquiring a settlement in two towns at the same time, which could certainly never have been the intention of the legislature. The party must dwell in the town the same three years that he owns and takes the profits of the estate. When Webster purchased the farm, it was not certain that he would remove to Lyman. It may be presumed, too, that he chose to retain his settlement in Wells, and with that intent left Lyman before the three years expired. It is the right or privilege of a citizen to acquire a new settlement, or retain his former one, at his option. If three full years’ residence and ownership, contemporary with each other, are once dispensed with, no fixed rule can be made, and it is peculiarly true, in questions of settlement, that it is of vastly more interest to the community that principles and rules should be fixed and settled, than what those principles and rules are.
    
      Richardson
    
    contended that it is a sufficient compliance with the statute, that the party resides in the town three years, and receives the whole rents and profits of an estate owned by him, and whose annual income is more than ten dollars, for the three years. Had the * legislature intended a perfect concurrence of the three requisites, another mode of expression would have been used.
    At the last July term in Plymouth, the Court ordered a new trial, on the ground taken by the counsel for the plaintiffs, viz., that a settlement is to be gained in the fourth manner provided in the statute  only when the citizen dwells and has his home in the town three years, and has an estate of inheritance or freehold of the required income during the whole of the same three years during which he shall so dwell or have his home, 
    
    
      
      
        Stat. 1793, c. 34.
    
    
      
      
         [Inhab. Barre vs. Inhab. Greenwich, 1 Pick. 129. — Ed.]