Case Name: NEW-LONDON vs. SUTTON
Court: New Hampshire Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1821-10
Citations: 2 N.H. 401
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEW-LONDON vs. SUTTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 401–401

Head Matter:
NEW-LONDON vs. SUTTON.
A person, who has only a ri"ht m equity to re'íí^tn land in the town where he. dutdK cannot g,ain a set) kan cm in the town by paying o'1 t'oo taxes assessed, upon his poll and estate lor the term oi four years, unless his right in equity to redeem be o* the value ot $150.
Assumpsit for the su] port of a pauper, alleged to have a settlement in Sutton.
The cause was tried here at April term, 1821, upon the general issue, when it appeared in evidence, that the pauper removed to Sutton in the year 1810 ; that he resided there until the year 1816, paying all taxes assessed upon his poll and estate ; that at the time of his removal to Sutton, he was seized of an undivided moiety of a tract of land in Sutton, the value of the whole of which tract was ff 50 ; and that on the 30th September, 1813, the pauper and Ms co-tenant conveyed the land in fee and in mortgage to secure the payment of $700, no part of which has ever been paid.
A v erdict was taken for the defendants, subject to the opinion of the court upon the foregoing case.
J. Smith and H. B. Chase, for the plaintiffs.
Noyes, for the defendants.
(1)1 N. H Laws 362.

Opinion:
By the court.
The statute of January 1, 1796, provides, that any person of twenty-one years of age and upwards, having real estate of the value of $150 in the town where he dwells, and for the term of four years paying all taxes assessed upon his poll and estate, shall thereby gain a settlement.^)
It has always been considered, that a right in equity to redeem land was real estate within the meaning of the statute above mentioned. 6 Mass. Rep. 50, Groton vs. Boxborough.—11 ditto 327, Conway vs. Deerfield.—Caldecot 230, Witherell vs. Hull.
But in this case the pauper's right in equity to redeem the land, after the conveyance in 1813, cannot, upon any calculation, be considered as of the value of $150. He cannot, therefore, be considered as having had real estate of that value for lour years, and of course gained no settlement in Sutton.
Judgment on the verdict.