Case ID: mass_15/html/0219-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Inhabitants of Upton versus The Inhabitants of Northbridge.
    One who is non compos mentis, not having estate sufficient to give him a settlement in virtue thereof, follows the settlement of his father, as well after he comes to age as before.
    Assumpsit for the expense of supporting Israel Hill, a pauper, alleged by the plaintiffs to have had his lawful settlement in North-bridge.
    
    At the trial before the Chief Justice, at the last April term, in this county, nothing was in dispute but the question of settlement; and relative to that point, the following facts were proved, viz.: The pauper was the son of Jacob Hill, who had formerly removed from Upton to Northbridge, and had gained a settlement in the latter town before the year 1793; which settlement continued to that time. In that year, and while the father’s settlement was in North-bridge, the pauper came of age. Afterwards, and before the year 1802, the said Jacob Hill returned to Upton, and acquired a settlement there in that year. The pauper removed with his father to Upton, not having left the family, or gained any settlement in his own right.
    The plaintiffs contended that the pauper, having the derivative settlement of his father in Northbridge, in the year 1793, continued that settlement to the time of his death, which happened a short time before the commencement of this suit, he not having gained a new settlement any where.
    * The defendants insisted that the pauper remained of his father’s family, and so had his new settlement with his father in Upton, in the year 1802; because he was non compos mentis, and incapable of gaining a settlement for himself.
    There was much evidence offered to the jury, tending to prove the capacity or incapacity of the pauper. It appeared that he had earned his living by letting himself out to farmers in the vicinity, making his own bargains, and being considered honest and industrious, but not entitled to the common wages of laborers, for want of ordinary skill in business. He made small contracts relative to his labor, taking and giving promissory notes to a small amount, occasionally, from and to those with whom he dealt. He resided $t his father’s house in Upton in the winter, and generally, in the spring, used to hire himself out for a week or a month, and sometimes more, at a time; taking his wages (commonly about half what was usual for laborers) in clothes, grain, &c., which he often carried to his father’s; usually going there once in a week or fortnight, while thus laboring abroad. He was never taxed, even for his poll, and was never enrolled with the militia; was considered odd and strange, but was always harmless.
    The Chief Justice directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiffs or the defendants, as they should find, from the evidence, the pauper to be non compos mentis or otherwise; and he stated to them, if they were satisfied, from the manner of his life and conduct, and the dealings of people with him, that he would have been a suitable subject of guardianship, for want of understanding, provided a commission had issued from the probate office to inquire into that fact, they should consider him non compos.
    
    The verdict was returned for the defendants, on the ground that the pauper was non compos, and so remained a part of his father’s family, although of the age of twenty-one years when his father removed to Upton. The question of law was reserved for the opinion of the whole Court, whether, upon the facts, the verdiet was right. If it was, *judgment was to be entered upon it; if not, it was to be set aside, and the defendants to be defaulted.
    
      Bigelow and Lincoln for the plaintiffs.
    
      Hastings and Taft for the defendants.
   Parker, C. J.

This case presents an important question, which seems yet to have been left unsettled. The pauper for whose support the suit is brought is found by the jury to have been non compos mentis; and, from the facts proved, it is to be presumed that he has been so a nativitate. In 1793, the pauper’s father had his settlement in Northbridge ; and the pauper was then twenty-one years of age, and, but for his imbecility, was capable of acquiring a settlement himself. The removal of his father to Upton, and his regaining a settlement, would not, but for the cause aforesaid, have carried with it the settlement of the pauper, but his settlement would have remained in Northbridge until he had gained a new one in his own right.

We are clear that, being non compos, he remained one of his father’s family, and continued to derive his settlement under him. The pauper was not capable of any act by which he could gain a settlement for himself; and therefore, like a slave in former times, or a wife, or minor children, his settlement changed with that of his father.

As to the objections which have been raised in the argument that a non compos may inherit land, or may, by possibility, acquire property in other ways, we do not mean to decide that a person so circumstanced cannot, by virtue of his estate, acquire a settlement. It has been decided that minors who are forisfamiliated, may, under the statute of 1789, c. 14, by occupancy of estate belonging to them, acquire a settlement. But, in the case before us, the pauper had no estate, and he continued of his father’s household as much as his wandering life would allow ; and no town ever ventured to consider him as subject to any of the duties of a citizen,

Judgment on the verdict. 
      
       7 Mass. Rep. 1, Granby vs. Amherst.
      
     
      
       Vide Holyoke vs. Haskins & Ux. 5 Pick. 20. — Cutts vs. Haskins & Al. 9 Mass. Rep. 514. — Buckland vs. Charlemont, 3 Pick. 173.