Case Name: West Greenwich v. Warwick
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1856-09
Citations: 4 R.I. 136
Docket Number: 
Parties: West Greenwich v. Warwick.
Judges: 
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 136–138

Head Matter:
West Greenwich v. Warwick.
In Rhode Island a wife follows the settlement of her husband, if he has one in this state or in any of the United States, and if not, retains the settlement that she had at the time of her marriage.
In a controversy between two towns in this state concerning the settlement of a female pauper, bom in one of them, but married to a husband proved to have once had a settlement in a town in Massachusetts, it was held unnecessary for the town in which the pauper was born, to prove that the husband was settled in another town in this state, since by the law of Massachusetts the husband retained his original settlement there until he had gained another settlement in that state.
Appeal from an order of the town council of Warwick, made December 15, 1832, adjudging that Sarah Hood, who had become chargeable as a pauper, was not an inhabitant of Warwick, that West Greenwich was the place of her last settlement, and ordering her to be removed to that town.
The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Bradley for the order.
Wm. H. Potter against it.

Opinion:
Bosworth, J.
On the trial of this ease it was admitted that Sarah Tyler, afterwards Sarah Hood, who was ordered to be removed, had a legal settlement in West Greenwich before her marriage.
By our law, "A married woman shall always follow and have the settlement of her husband, if he hath any settlement within this state or in any other of the United States ; but if he hath no settlement within this state nor in any other of the United States, the wife shall have and retain her settlement at the time of her marriage." Dig. 1844, p. 340. Sarah Tyler, then, when she was married to George Hood, followed and had his settlement, if any he had, in this state, or in any other of the United States. By the marriage, the settlement of the husband, if he has one, is ipso facto transferred to the wife. This is so at common law, and it is so provided by the statute. The settlement of the wife is only retained in case the husband has no settlement in this country.
The question to be determined by the court is, whether George Hood, the husband, had at the time of the marriage a legal settlement in this state or in any other of the United States ? This question is to be determined upon the evidence in the case.
It appears by the evidence that Benjamin Hood, the grandfather of George, was legally settled in Taunton in the state of Massachusetts, and that John Hood, the father of George, lived with his father in Taunton, until about the time he became twenty-one years of age. He then removed to Providence and married there, and with his wife returned to Taunton and lived there several years. By the law of Massachusetts, legitimate children take the settlement of their father; and so John Hood had a setttlement in Taunton; George Hood was the son of John Hood, born in Providence, in this state, to which place his father, John Hood, removed about the time of the death of his father, Benjamin Hood. There is no evidence that John Hood or his son, George Hood, ever gained a settlement in Providence or in this state. He certainly retained his settlement in Taunton, Massachusetts; for even if he had gained a settlement in this state, he would retain it, by the law of Massachusetts, as announced by the supreme court of that state, until he had gained another settlement in that state. See Revised Statutes of Massachusetts and 10th Mass. Rep. 413. George Hood not having, as the proof stands, gained a settlement of his own, took the settlement of his father, John Hood, in Taunton.
George Hood, therefore, at the time of his marriage, had a settlement in Taunton, and Sarah Hood follows and has his settlement. She cannot, therefore, retain her settlement in West Greenwich, because her husband, having no settlement within this state, (or indeed if he has one,) has still.a settlement in another state of the United States.
The order of the town council of W arwick must therefore be reversed, with costs, and the town of West Greenwich must have and recover the charges for the support of the pauper to which it has been put by the order, as well as the costs and charges of removing the pauper back to the town of Warwick.