Case Name: The town of Bethlem against The town of Roxbury
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1850-07
Citations: 20 Conn. 298
Docket Number: 
Parties: The town of Bethlem against The town of Roxbury.
Judges: In this opinion Waite, Storrs and Hinman, Js., concurred.
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 298–305

Head Matter:
The town of Bethlem against The town of Roxbury.
Where a bastard was born in the state of New York, in the year 1811, of a mother having a settlement in this state; and in 1814, the mother removed, with such bastard child, into this state, where she has since remained, without having, at any time, lost her original settlement; it was held, 1. that such bastard child had a settlement by birth, in the state of New-York ; 2. that on his coming into this state, he did not take the settlement of his mother. [The chief justice dissenting.]
In the absence of any statute regulation, the acquisition of a settlement in one state, puts an end to a prior one of the same person in another state.
This case came before the superior court, by a submission of the parties under the statute of 1848 ; (Stat, 109, 110. § 211.) and was there reserved for the advice of this court. The case agreed upon was as follows.
Esther A. Lucas was born in Roxbury, in this state, in the year ; and was a settled inhabitant of that town. She removed into the state of New-York, in the year 1810, and cohabited there with Dean Bishop, as her husband, to whom she was never legally married, for the reason that he had a wife then living in Connecticut; and during her residence in the state of New-York, she had an illegitimate son, by the name of Sheldon Bishop, born in the town of Stamford, in the state of New-York, in the year 1811; she then residing in said Stamford, with her reputed husband. But said Esther A. did not then, or since, gain any settlement in the state of New-York, nor in any other place in this state, or elsewhere. She continued thus to reside in the state of New-York, until the year 1814, and had divers other children, while so residing in that state, all of whom are the reputed children of said Dean Bishop. In 1814, she, with her son Sheldon and other children, and her reputed husband, removed into the town of Salisbury, in this state ; and continued to reside there, for about four years ; and then returned to the state of New-York, with her son Sheldon and other children and reputed husband ; and since that time, they have all resided in the states of New-York, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Sheldon Bishop afterwards, in the town of Bethlem, intermarried with Angeline Boutor, an inhabitant of the state of Connecticut; and they have five children, two of whom were born in Salisbury, Conn., to wit, Sheldon G. and Milan G. The remaining three were born, as is supposed, in the state of Massachusetts.
Litchfield,
July, 1850.
On the 17th day of November, 1847, these five children came into the town of Bethlem, from the town of Salisbury, in a suffering condition, and have ever since required, and received, support from the town of Bethlem. The town of Roxbury was duly notified of the condition of said children.
The parties, and the court, and the counsel, are to have full liberty to make use of the statutes and reports of the states of New-York and Massachusetts, to ascertain the law of those states, or either of them.
Upon the foregoing facts it is submitted, whether the town of Bethlem is entitled to recover from the town of Roxbury for the support of said paupers, or either of them. And if the above point is decided in favour of the town of Bethlem against the town of Roxbury, the amount to be recovered is to be settled, by the court, upon evidence, unless the parties can agree on the amount.
Seymour and G. C. Woodruff, for the plaintiffs,
contended, That Sheldon Bishop, the father of the paupers, had his settlement in Roxbury. The case shews, that his mother’s settlement was there; and that she never lost that settlement. Sheldon was born in the state of New-York. When three years of age, he removed, with his mother, to Salisbury, in this state. While they remained there, her settlement in Roxbury continued. Now, whether by the law of New-York he would have been treated as having a settlement there, or not, is immaterial; because on her return to this state with him, her settlement in Roxbury was communicated to him by parentage, which supersedes a settlement by birth. New-town v. Stratford, 3 Conn. R. 600. Oxford v. Bethany, 19 Conn. R. 229. Woodstock v. Hooker, 6 Conn. R. 35. Dan-bury v. New-Haven, 5 Conn. R. 584. New-Haven v. New-town, 12 Conn. R. 105. Newtown v. Fairfield, 18 Conn. R. 350.
Orion, contra,
contended, 1. That Sheldon Bishop, being a bastard, born in the state of New-York, had a settlement there by birth. Wynkoop v. Overseers of the Poor, 3 Johns. R. 15. Delavergne v. Noxon, 14 Johns. R. 333.
2. That having a settlement by birth in New-York, and never having gained one in his own right in this state, his place of settlement was not changed, by his removing into this state.
3. That the paupers, being the legitimate children of Sheldon Bishop, take his settlement, by parentage.

Opinion:
Ellsworth, J.
The paupers in question are the legitimate children of Sheldon Bishop, and have never had a settlement in this state, in their own right. Their settlement will follow that of their father. Their father was born in Stamford, in the state of New-York, of Esther A. Lucas, an unmarried woman, then living in said town of Stamford; but she had never gained a settlement in that state, and had never lost her settlement by birth, which she had in the town of Rox-bury, in this state.
In the argument of the case, the counsel for both parties have proceeded upon the ground, that in 1811, when Sheldon Bishop was born, the law of New-York was, as to the settlement of a bastard, born in that state, and especially of a mother having no settlement in that state, the same as the common law, viz., that a bastard is settled where born. Several adjudications to this effect were cited from their books, and their correctness was not questioned. No point was made by the counsel but upon this assumption ; so that we have had no occasion to inquire, when, if ever, they have changed the common law, or what construction has been put upon any of their statutes, if they have any, touching the question.
We say then, the bastard child did not take the settlement of its mother, nor did the child, born there, take the settlement of the mother in Connecticut. Had the child been legitimate, it would have been otherwise. This precise question was do adjudged in Wynkoop v. Overseers of Poor, 3 Johns. R. 16. See likewise the other cases cited at the bar. Hence it follows, that Sheldon, when born, was settled in Stamford; and having that settlement, he had no other, at the time of his birth; for he could not have two settlements, one in New-York, and one in Connecticut, at the same time. Within these states, the acquisition of a new settlement in the same or another state, puts an end to a prior one, unless there be some statutory provision to the contrary, as was decided in Middletown v. Lyme, 5 Coon. R. 95. where a settlement in this state was lost, by acquiring a new settlement in New-Hampshire.
So it has been repeatedly held, on the circuit, before and since that case. If a woman settled in Connecticut, marries a man settled in New-York, she loses her settlement here, absolutely ; and so if she acquired a settlement there, in any way, she must re-acquire one here, or she is, if poor, a foreign pauper. The same is true of an illegitimate child. If it is settled by birth in New-York, and comes here, it comes with a settlement, and can be treated like any inhabitant of New-York. And because our law declares that an illegitimate child does not take a settlement by birth ; it has no application where the contrary is true.
It has been urged, that this bastard child, though born in New-York, was born of an inhabitant of Roxbury, and therefore took the mother's settlement in that place. This would be true, had the child been legitimate, as then, it would have had no settlement by birth in Stamford; but being illegitimate, the law of New-York gave it a settlement where born, and having one settlement, it did not then have another; i.e. one by birth in New-York, and one by parentage in Connecticut. This distinction was taken by this court, in Woodstock v. Hooker, 6 Conn. R. 36. where a bastard born in Massachusetts, of a person settled in Woodstock, was held to take the mother's settlement in Connecticut, because by the statute of Massachusetts, the bastard gained no settlement in Massachusetts by birth.
It has been further said, that at all events, when Sheldvn Bishop returned to Connecticut, the law of Connecticut took effect, and settled him with his mother in Roxbury. For it is said, this would have been the case, if he had been born in Connecticut; and so if the mother should acquire a new settlement, it would be imparted to a minor child ; and therefore her existing settlement in Roxbury should become his, as soon as he comes into the state. But why this? The child comes into Connecticut having a settlement in New-York. When does he throw off that settlement ? He took it by birth, when parentage existed, and in spite of parentage. So long as he lived in New-York, he certainly had no settlement in Connecticut,-not even according to our own law. How then, by passing the line, is the settlement changed ; or is he now settled in Connecticut, ab initio, by parentage ? Had he lived with his mother in Connecticut, he would have taken a new settlement, had she acquired one. But she acquired none ; and no case can be found which has gone beyond the acquisition of a new settlement by the mother.
Our conclusion, therefore, is, that these children have no settlement in the town of Roxbury, but took the settlement of their father in Stamford, where he was born, and has never-gained another settlement.
We advise the superior court, that judgment be rendered for the defendants.
In this opinion Waite, Storrs and Hinman, Js., concurred.