Case Name: Standish vs. Windham
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1833-04
Citations: 10 Me. 97
Docket Number: 
Parties: Standish vs. Windham.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 97–99

Head Matter:
Standish vs. Windham.
R. M. became chargeable, as a pauper to the town of W. she then residing therein. The sons of the pauper being able to support her, and being called on for the purpose, refunded to said town the amount thus expended, and also gave an obligation, “ to support her as long as they were able.” After which she was supported by the sons in another town, for a period of five successive years. It was held that by such residence she gained a legal settlement in the latter town, notwithstanding the taking and holding of said obligation by the town of W. and the support rendered by the sons in pursuance of its.
In this action, which was assumpsit to recover certain expenses incurred for the support of Rosanna Mayberry, it was admitted that she' had once a legal settlement in the town of Windham, and the only question in the cause was, whether she had since gained one in Standish by a residence there for more than live successive years. It was proved that she had resided in the latter town ever since Nov. 1324 ; but it was contended that during that time, or a part of it, she had directly or indirectly received supplies as a pauper from said town of Standish or from the town of Windham. On this point there was much evidence before the jury on both sides : and among the rest, it appeared that, in the fall of 1824, Rosanna Mayberry, then residing in Windham,, became chargeable as a pauper, and that the town of Windham paid to the son-in-law of said pauper, five dollars for her support. The sons of the said pauper, then residing in the town of Standish, being of sufficient abili» ty to maintain their mother, were then called on by the town of Windham to repay the amount thus expended for her, which they did; and also gave to Windham an obligation whereby they engaged to support the said Rosanna as long as they were able; and it appeared that she had continued to live in the family 'of one of the sons since she became a resident in Standish.
All the evidence in the cause was submitted to the' jury for their consideration ; the Chief Justice, before whom the cause was tried, at the same time instructing them that, the aid of the sons in giving said writing, and of the town of Windham in receiving it, in connexion with the pauper’s residence in the family of one of said sons, did not, in legal contemplation, amount to the furnishing of supplies, directly, or indirectly, by the town of Windham to the pauper.
The jury having returned a verdict in favour of the defendant town, the case was reserved for the opinion of the whole Court, on the correctness of the foregoing instructions. •
Longfellow and Boyd, for the plaintiffs.
The town of Windham by coercing the sons of the pauper to give a bond to maintain her, indirectly furnished her support, and therefore her continued residence in Standish for five years, could not operate to fix her settlement in that town. If one town can send its paupers into another town, and enable them to gain a residence as contended for by the defendants, it would seem to be a palpable perversion of the statute. In this case Rosanna Mayberry was sent to Standish as a pauper, and was supported there by her sons as a pauper, they being answerable over to the town of Windham. Watson v. Cambridge, 15 Mass. 286 ; East-Sudbury ®. Waltham, 13 Mass. 460.
S. and W. P. Fessenden, for the defendants,
relied on the case of Wiscasset ®. Waldoborough, 3 Greenl. 388, as decisive of this.

Opinion:
Mellen C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is enacted in the second section of the act of 1821, ch. 122, " That any person of the age of twenty-one years, who " shall hereafter reside in any town within this State, for the " space of five years together, and shall not during that term " receive, directly or indirectly, any supplies or support as a " pauper from any town, shall thereby gain a settlement in such " town." The only question in the cause is, whether the pauper, during the five years of her residence in Standish, next after her removal from Windham, into that town, did directly or indirectly receive any supplies or support as a pauper from any town. From the facts reported we are clearly of opinion that she did not. The payment of the five dollars by Windham, was prior to the commencement of the abovementioned term of five years ; and while the pauper resided in Windham; and the sum so paid was repaid, and the obligation given by her sons, before her removal to Standish. How can the protection from expense, enjoyed by Windham, in consequence of the abovementioned bond or contract of indemnity, according to the legitimate use of language, be considered as expense indirectly incurred by that town. Suppose the sons had maintained their mother ever since her removal into Standish, from a sense of filial obligation and filial affection only : could- Windham in that case be deemed to have indirectly furnished her supplies as a pauper ? Surely not. Is the case altered by thccircumslancc of the written obligation, which imposed a superadded duty ? Suppose the pauper were now by some means to become possessed of a handsome property, could the town of Windham maintain an action against her, in virtue of the 19th section of said act, and recover the amount of the expenses incurred in hef?support by her sons, pursuant to their contract with the town ? Surely the question is too plain for further examination. The case of Watson v. Cambridge has little resemblance to the present case. It only decides that a bond by one man given to another to indemnify the obligee, who was chargeable with the support of a pauper, did not operate to discharge the town of her last settlement from the obligation to maintain such pauper. The case of East-Sudbury v. Waltham seems to have no bearing on the case before us. In Wiscasset v. Waldoborough, this Court decided that a bond given to the town of Waldoborough to support the pauper could in no view be considered as supplies furnished by the town. We think the instruction of the [Judge was correct and of course there must be
Judgment on the verdict.