Case Name: The Inhabitants of Groton versus The Inhabitants of Shirley
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1810-10
Citations: 6 Tyng 156
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Inhabitants of Groton versus The Inhabitants of Shirley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 131–133

Head Matter:
The Inhabitants of Groton versus The Inhabitants of Shirley.
Vhen part of an existing town is detached, and annexed to another existing town, the inhabitants of such part, having a settlement in the town from which they are detached, acquire by such annexation a settlement in the town to which they are annexed.
This action was case against the defendants to recover the expenses of maintaining James Bartlett, a pauper, alleged to have his settlement in Shirley.
The cause was tried on the general issue, before the chief justice. at the sittings here after the last October term
On the trial, it was admitted that the pauper’s settlement wai derived from his father, Samuel Bartlet; and that if the father’s settlement was in Shirley, the plaintiff must recover. On this point it was proved that Samuel, the father, before and on the 25th of January, 1765, lived in Stow, in that part of it then called Stow-leg, having his legal settlement there; that on the same 25th of January, by an act of the provincial legislature, the said Stow-leg and all the inhabitants living on it were annexed to and made a part of the town of Shirley; that the said Samuel continued to dwell in that part of Shirley formerly Stow-leg from that time to the 18th of April, 1767, without having been warned out; and on this last day he removed to Groton.
On these facts the chief justice directed the jury, that in law the said Samuel had acquired a settlement in Shirley; and a verdict was found for the plaintiffs. The defendants moved for a new trial, on the ground of a misdirection by the judge.
The action stood over to this term upon the said motion ; and now Dana, in support of the motion, contended, 1. That it was unnecessary for Shirley to warn Samuel Bartlet upon [ * 157 ] * the annexation of his place of dwelling to that town: he did not go there to sojourn ; and if he had been warned he could not have been removed from his freehold. 2. Notwithstanding this annexation to Shirley, he retained his former settlement in Stow.
Lawrence for the plaintiffs.
1 4 Mass Rep. 452, Bath vs. Bowdoin. — Ibid. 384, Windham vs. Portland

Opinion:
The action being continued nisi, the opinion of the Court was delivered at the following November term in Suffolk, by
Parsons, C. J.
It is settled, that when a new town is made out of parcels of two or more towns, including the inhabitants living on the parcels, all the inhabitants, having settlements in the towns in which they dwelt, acquire a settlement in the new town by the act of incorporation. But the defendants' counsel have endeavored to distinguish from this case the case where a part of an existing town is detached, and annexed to another existing town.
We are not satisfied that there is any ground for the distinction which is attempted. Upon the annexation of Stow-leg to Shirley, the inhabitants of Shirley were entitled, not only to the benefit of all the lands in the leg, but also to all the wealth, property, and personal services of the inhabitants, towards the discharge of the municipal duties of the town of Shirley ; of all which Stow by the annexation has been deprived. It would then be unreasonable to leave to Stow the burden of maintaining these inhabitants, when they should become poor, and unable by their personal labor to maintain themselves. The annexation of Stow-leg to Shirley must for this purpose, therefore, be considered as having the same effect, as the making of a new town out of Shirley and Stow.
Let judgment be entered on the verdict.