Case Name: Henry Woodward, Treasurer of the State Lunatic Hospital at Worcester, vs. City of Worcester
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1860-01
Citations: 15 Gray 19
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry Woodward, Treasurer of the State Lunatic Hospital at Worcester, vs. City of Worcester.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 81
Pages: 19–19

Head Matter:
Henry Woodward, Treasurer of the State Lunatic Hospital at Worcester, vs. City of Worcester.
Action of contract to recover for the support of Catharine Pfeifer, wife of Peter S. Pfeifer, at the State Lunatic Hospital at Worcester from the 11th of November 1856 to the 20th of September 1858. The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon these facts :
The husband and wife were natives of Prance, came to this country in 1848, and were married here in 1850. In October 1853 he purchased for $ 1500 land in WorceS' ter, with a dwelling-house thereon, in which he has lived with his family ever since. He was naturalized, being then more than twenty one years of age, on the 11th of November 1853, since which he has been a citizen of Massachusetts. Neither he nor his wife has a settlement in any town or city in this Commonwealth, unless, upon the facts agreed, he acquired one in the city of Worcester on the 11th of November 1856, according to the fourth mode of the Rev. Sts. c. 45, § 2. The wife was duly committed to the hospital by the judge of probate, with the knowledge of the husband, on the application of Henry Sargent, on the 13th of September 1855, and has since remained there. No payment has ever been made to the hospital for her support. Her expenses from the date of her commitment to the 11th of November 1856 were charged to the Commonwealth, which refused payment thereof.
P. E. Aldrich, for the plaintiff.
G. F. Hoar D. Foster, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Metcalf, J.
This case must follow that of Charlestown v. Groveland. It is true that the husband did not, in this case, request that his wife should be committed to the hospital, as the husband did in that case; nor does it appear that he consented to her commitment. But he knew that she was committed by authority of the law, which was paramount to his will in the matter; and he omitted to support her at the hospital, and left her to be supported by the Commonwealth. This support, furnished at the Commonwealth's expense, prevented his gaining a settlement in Worcester. As he acquired no settlement there, his wife acquired none, and Worcester was not the place of her settlement when she was committed to the hospital, nor has it since become such.
Judgment fir the defendant.