Case Name: Matter of the Settlement of Martin Chapman, a Pauper
Court: County Court of New York, Cattaraugus County
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-06
Citations: 15 Misc. 296
Docket Number: 
Parties: Matter of the Settlement of Martin Chapman, a Pauper.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 296–300

Head Matter:
Matter of the Settlement of Martin Chapman, a Pauper.
(County Court-Cattaraugus County,
June, 1895.)
Poor— Settlement. ■
Á settlement in a county or town in this state is lost hy .gaining a settlement in'an.other state, and, in such case, the person can] only; regain a settlement here hy continuing to he a resident of some town-for one year. ■
Rboceeding-. to. charge the town of Otto with the- support' of a pauper.
E. D. Northrup, for town, of Ellicottville.
D. E. Powell, for town of Otto.
Received too late for insertion in proper place.-[Reporter.

Opinion:
Vreeland, J.
This man, Martin Chapman, was in the town. of Ellicottville, Cattaraugus county, in the month of Decern^ her, 1892, and,, either upon his own request or at.the solicita-., tion of the overseer of the • poor - of that town,' received aid-from such overseer, as a pauper.
'On December twenty-third of" the same year the overseer.' of Ellicottville served a'notice in writing in the- usual form-upon the overseer of the poor of the-town ol Otto,' that Chápman Was settled' in Otto and. was being maintained by Ellicottville.
On December twerity-eigllth'f ollowing, and within, ten days, the overseer of Otto gave notice to the overseer of Ellicottville that he would contest before.thé county superintendent, .on a day.named, such.alleged settlement of said pauper.:
. The proceeding was tried and decided by the superintend ent, who found that Chapman had not had a settlement in Ellicottville, but did not decide that he either did or did not have a settlement in Otto, and awarded ten dollars costs .to Ellicottville as the " prevailing party."
Whereupon Otto appealed for a new trial, and upon such trial the parties stipulated that the evidence taken before the superintendent should be used and treated as the evidence on the trial before this court.
Under these circumstances a review of the case by this court partakes rather of a review of questions of law than a new trial of facts.
No claim was made before the superintendent that Chapman ever gained a settlement in Ellicottville, and no contention to that effect is indulged in here.
This leaves as the only question -to be disposed of the proposition whether or not thé pauper had at the time of the trial a settlement in Otto, and «from the evidence I am disposed to find that such was not the case, but that by gaining a settlement in the state of Pennsylvania he lost all claim to a settlement in any -of the towns- of this county, and could -only regain such settlement in the usual way, by continuing' to be ' a resident in some one town for one year.
The evidence shows, and neither party disputes it, that Chapman lived in Bradford, Pennsylvania, for one year, about 1885, and again for two years, about 1887-88, and again for nearly a year, about 1890] that his family lived with him during the first year when he was in Pennsylvania, and that he voted there when a resident in that state.
His settlement in Otto, if one was ever acquired, was gained prior to February, 1884, and prior to his first residence in Pennsylvania.
The contention of Ellicottville is that the settlement of the pauper was in Otto, but Otto claims that since any residence or settlement was gained that he might have had in that town Chapman had acquired a new settlement in Pennsylvania, and had for that reason lost such settlement in Otto, and that he must again acquire a .settlement in Otto before he would be chargeable to that- town. •
.It is, not easy..to- determine the fact whether or not Chapman ever had a. settlement in Otto, but that question becomes immaterial if the proposition'that when he gained a settlement in Pennsylvania he lost any settlement which lie had in this state, and could only regain it in the usual way, be established to be sound law, '
No evidence .was offered showing under what circumstances a person máy gain a settlement in the state of.- Pennsylvania,1 and in the absence of such proof the laws of that state in- that respect must be. presumed to be the .same as the laws of our own. Monroe v. Douglass, 5 N. Y. 447; Savage v. O'Neil, 44 id. 298; Hunt v. Johnson, Id. 27.
A residence of one year, with his family "and. again -of two year's, and his exercise," during such time, of ,'his right to vote in some town of this . state, wotid gain for him a settlement here, and these factSj in the absence of evidence, must be held to have gained for him a settlement in Pennsylvania. -
The question then arises,, does a person who once gamed a settlement in'one of the towns of this state retain it for all the purposes for which ^ a settlement may be made effective, so that he may become chargeable to- such town, although he may have subsequently gained a settlement in another County . of the state, or in another'state ?
As the situation -is presented here, Chapman had the right to apply to the poor authorities where he-was in Pennsylvania' for relief, .and they were required to comply.
But if he also had a settlement at the same time, in Otto, he'could, at his option, return to Otto, and-. the poor authorities there must, also 'relieve his necessities.
If this be the law, then a .person having a settlement in the town of' Salamanca might remove to Nansas and reside there for--fifty years and gain - a settlement there,-then- return to the former place, aud, for all the purposes of the poor-laws, still be held to have retained-the-former settlement.
He might even bring with him a wife and .flock of. children who were n,ever residents of Salamanca, but who might, nevertheless, be held to take the former settlement of the husband, and father.
These are extreme cases, yet possible to arise" under the theory that has long prevailed among the poor authorities in the state, that a settlement once gained in any town in the state should continue until a settlement should be gained in some other town in the state, irrespective of the interval.
This rule would amount, in effect, to holding a town responsible f.or the support, in case of need, of all the persons ever gaining a settlement within its borders, so long as they did not acquire a settlement elsewhere within the state.
The law does not appear to uphold subh a theory,' but, on the contrary, such authorities as can be produced tend to establish a different doctrine.
The present able superintendent of the poor of Cattaraugus county, in a well-considered paper read before the convention of superintendents of the poor of the counties of the state, held at TJtica in August, 1892, said upon this subject: "A proper rulé would be to disregard the former settlement,, if one ever existed, and to treat, the persons applying for relief" as if they had never been in the county before, especially where they gained a new settlement in another county."
I do not find that, the courts of the state have ever decided the question involved here.
In Stillwell v. Kennedy, 24 N. Y. St. Repr. 140, which involved the settlement of Charles Ayers in the city of Elmira, N. Y., where the pauper had been for many years a resident of Kansas with his parents, the court says: " It is very clear that, by the removal of the mother and the son to.Kansas, they lost their residence in "this state and became residents and citizens of Kansas."
Again, the opinion states: " When the mother became a resident of the city of Elmira, and the boy followed her to that place, a residence and settlement were vriitiated."
While these dicta, under the circumstances, are not of much, weight as authority, still they indicate to some extent the course of reasoning, the court would • adopt if the question were before it.
The proposition appears to ' have been decided in Town of Middleton v. Town of Lyme, 5 Conn. 95, where the opinion ' .says, upon quite- a similar state of- facts-: " A person having a settlement in this state loses it by gaining a settlement in-another state, and can regain a settlement here in no óther manner than any other inhabitant of. another state."
While this case was decided long ago, I do not. find that the principle' involved has been distinguished by later-cases. "
Of substantially the same import is North Yarmouth v. West Gardiner, decided by the Supreme Court of Maine in T870,. and reported in 4 Am. Rep. 279.
The decision in 34 Conn. 273 (Town of Morris v. Town of Plymouth) was decided . under a statute enacted -after the decision in Town of Middleton v. Town of Lyme.
In view-of the facts and these-authorities I think-it must be held that Chapman had not, at the' time of service of tlie notice,.by the overseer of Ellicottville upon the overseer of Olto, a settlement in the town of Otto, or' in -any other town in the county.
I -find as conclusion of law that the proceeding to charge the town of Otto with the support of said Martin Chapman' be dismissed, .with costs; such costs, under the stipulation of appellant's attorney, not to' exceed tlie sum of twenty dollars.
Proceedings dismissed, with costs.