Case Name: OVERSEERS OF POOR OF DAVIDSON TOWNSHIP vs. OVERSEERS OF POOR OF MORELAND TOWNSHIP
Court: Lycoming County Court of Quarter Sessions
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1879-06-20
Citations: 1 Law Times (N.S.) 157
Docket Number: 
Parties: OVERSEERS OF POOR OF DAVIDSON TOWNSHIP vs. OVERSEERS OF POOR OF MORELAND TOWNSHIP.
Judges: 
Reporter: Law Times (New Series)
Volume: 1
Pages: 157–162

Head Matter:
QUARTER SESSIONS OF LYCOMING CO-
OVERSEERS OF POOR OF DAVIDSON TOWNSHIP vs. OVERSEERS OF POOR OF MORELAND TOWNSHIP.
1'aupeRS — Poor laws oe Pennsylvania — Removals of pauper — Settlement oe pauper, when derived from parent — Emancipation of a child at 21 years of age— . Able-bodied children arriving ' At 21 become ipso facto emancipated — Effect of a change of residence
BY PARENT AND EMANCIPATED CHILD, FOLLOWED BY SERVICE IN THE parent’s FAMILY WITHOUT A CONTRACT OF HIRING.
Appeal from order of removal. The following were the facts: — .
Many years ago, Ann Sperry, at the age of 25, removed with her lather from Huntingdon Township, Luzerne County, to Davidson Township, Lycoming County. She was sound, in mind and-body,and for some years remained with her father, doing housework, without a contract of hiring, hope of. reward, or actual compensation beyond her board and clothing. ’ On this a claim of settlement in Davidson was subsequently tounded. From 1844 to 1868 Ann lived in Benton and various other districts, without gaining a settlement in any. In 1868,after a few months’ residence in Moreland Township, Lycoming County,Ann was disabled by a fall on the ice, and became a township charge. In 1869 two justices of Lycoming County made an order directing the overseers of Moreland to care for her “until she could be removed to her last legal settlement.” Soon afterwards the Moreland overseers took her and left her in Davidson Township, Sullivan County, at the residence of her halt-brother, alleging that Davidson was her “last legal settlement.” Her half-brother being unable to support her, the Davidson overseers, alleging that if she ever had a settlement in Davidson she ■ had afterwards lost it by going to Benton Township, Colum bia County, obtained an order for her .removal; back : to Moreland, which was effected. Thin order of return was affirmed, both on appeal to the Quarter Sessions of Sullivan County., and on writ ot error, the Supreme. . (.'9ur.t, holding that it was incumbent on Moreland ■ t<>-''ascertain her “last legal settlement.” (Moreland vs. Davidson, 21. Sin. 871.) ...
The Moreland overseers then obtained an order lor Ann’s removal ;to Benton Township,. Columbia County, but on appeal .to the Quarter Sessions ot .Lycoming County, the Benton overseers proved that Ann had no settlement there, and the order was reversed. The Supreme Court, on writ of error, affirmed this decree, and decided that “Moreland must resort to the last place of legal settlement of the pauper, whetever that-: sha:ll be found.” (Moreland vs. Benton, 3 Weekly Notes,-20.)
The Moreland overseers then, in 1877, again obtained an order of removal .to Davidson Township,,anil. Ann was sent there, whereupon the Davidson overseers’ took 'this appeal to the Quarter Sessions of Lycoming County. ■ All the testimony taken m the tor.mer.proceedings was read in evidence, and new testimony was taken, which tended’ to show that Ann had never acquired a ..legal ¡«settlement after leaving Davidson. ’ •••<>.• .•* • »*'
,0. II. Rei&haRD and P. F. Dkake, .fort lié appellant.
Moreland is concluded by the .decree.in . 21, ;S,un, r '373, from again Calling upon Davidson’to take charge of- .this pauper. ■ v . i.-fo-i:
It is not proved that Davidson was her'last le^al settle-ment.,
Linn, Bently, and Bently and. PaRKer, contra..
.April 15, 1879. The COURT. ■ Two ■ questions. • are raised in the proceedings before us in , this case:. (1) Whether or not Moreland Township is concluded by a= former decree from again calling upon Davidson' Town-' ship to. take charge of this pauper. (2) Whether : or. not Davidson Township-is the last place of .settlement of the' pauper Anp Sperry. . .- ,:-,o • d , • •
. '(1) As to fchefirst. questiómit-is-to be noticed that the proceeding-reported in 21 P. E. S., supra, was between the same parties,-land related to the same -subject matter, as.thenne-before us, viz..,--the ascertainment- of the last place of settlement- of the pauper Ann Sperry. And it is; also to be-, noticed that i n that proceeding Moreland Township was the appellant. Chief Justice GibSOn in West' Buftallo vs. Walker Township (8 Barr, 180), said: “If appears that, an order of/the Sessions confirming an order of ¡removal is,,conclu&ive'-',again,st the 'appealing parish.’ against all the world.” In the- view we take of this branch of the case it becomes necessary to inquire into the efteet to be given to the fact appearing in the record of the former, decree (21 P. F. S-., supra),- viz., that that decree was made against Moreland,not because the pauper did-not. have a settlement in'.. Davidson Township, but' because in the investigation of the'question then presented it appeared that’the pauper had acquired a 'settlement elsewhere "after She left Davidson. ■ - ■:.
We think the .Supreme Court in their wisdom foresaw the very question -now belore us, and expressly provided, against tlieir decree being.construed to be final -and eonL clnsive. between these partie's-. d Chief Justice Thompson, in delivering the-opinion of the Court, says': “I will not speculate on what .might be the condition of affairs- if fit-should turn out. eventually that she had no residénce <in Benton or in any other township,excepting at her deriva-* live settlement, which-it seems was Davidson Township;, we leave this.until it oectfrs.” - ' . . . i /. •
'* :(2) Did Ann Spdrry ha'vé'‘a settlement in- ‘Davidson1 Township? In both'the'former : investigations' vó'f '•this1 question it wfes taken for gtáüted in ; the " Courts' : below that this paü'pér had:'á deri-vatívé:SettlementTri Davidsóh' Township. Chief Justice Thompson says it sbéihs- her derivative settlement was Davidson Township. / In the discussion of the case now.before us -it . is .claimed, by Moreland Township that'the pauper had a settlement in; Davidson‘Township derivatively1 from, the father, vfho-'- had a settlement there while she remained in his family. It was not claimed nor indeed could it have been main' tained that Ann Sperry had any other kind of settlement. It is evident there was no contract of hiring either expressed or implied. Her services were rendered to her father and his family, after she became of age, no doubt on account ot her love and affection for her father, or for her younger brothers and sisters,or both. No contract of hiring was shown. ■ Many cases might be cited, that no contract can be presumed to exist between father and child for services rendered to the foi mer by the latter after she comes of age. . • , .
Did Ann Sperry then have a settlement in Davidson Township derivatively, by reason of her father, having a settlement there while she was a member of his family ? She undoubtedly did if she was not emancipated in law or in fact before she came to live in Davidson Township.
We have already seen that this pauper arrived at the, age of 21 years while she was a member of her father’s family in Huntingdon Township, Luzerne County,several years before she removed with the family to Davidson Township. That she never married, and tha.t she was always of sound mind and body and able to take care of herself until the accident happened in 1868, which rendered her chargeable.1. After she was of age she could have left her father’s house at any time; he could not. compel her to serve him any longer, nor restrain her from going and doing as she pleased, hhe was no longer under any legal restraint whatever. . She was then freed or emancipated by the law, and had power to do anything that might be lawfully done by anybody, and of course was competent by her own acts to acquire a settlement for herself in any of the modes prescribed in such cases by the statute,
Although we do not find any case iu this State squarely deciding it, we think the rule ot law is, that children arriving at the age of 21 years are ipso facto to be considered emancipated, unless they are compelled to remain longer with their parents on account of some infirmity oi mind or body, which renders them incapable of taking care of themselves.
That arriviug at the age of 21 years is equivalent to emancipation is plainly indicated in Lewis vs. Turbut (3 Harris, 147). Judge Anthony, in the Cou.rt below, then said: “The settlement of a pauper is the place of his birth, the father’s settlement is the settlement ot the children, etc. T1 util the son acquires a new settlement his father’s settlement is his. He must contract a relation inconsistent, with the idea of being part of his father’s family, as marriage or arriving at the age of 21 years, etc.,before he becomes emancipated,etc.” In affirming this judgment of the court below,the Supreme Court say in their per curiam opinion,“The law of the case was stated by the President Judge with entire accuracy in every particular.”
That children are not to be'considered emancipated at the age of 21 years who are compelled to remain longer with their parents on account ot some infirmity of mind or body which renders them incapable ot taking care of themselves, has been repeatedly decided in this and other States. In Washington vs. Beaver (8 W. & S. 548) the pauper was a lunatic. In Shippen vs. Gaines (5 Harris, 38) the pauper was an idiot. In Toby vs. Madison (8 vW. 60) the pauper was a lunatic. In Wayne vs. Jersey Shore (1 W. N. 0. 340) ihe pauper was insane.
In support of the rule as to children of sound mind and body, as we have above stated it,may be cited the following authorities: Monroe vs. Jackson (55 Maine, 55), Lowell vs.,Newport (66 Maine, 78); Oxtord vs. Rumney (3 New Hampshire, 331); Springfield vs. Wilbraham (4 Mass, 493); Upton vs. Northbridge (15 Mass. 237); Buck-land vs. Charlemont (3 Pick. (Mass.) 172). The only case we have been able to find tending to sustain a different rule, is the case of Alexandria vs. Bethlehem (16 New Jersey, 119), but an examination shows that the pauper in that case was an idiot, and hence the case is not necessarily in conflct with the rule. That a child who has been emancipated from her father’s family,does not,except by her own acts, acquire a settlement where her father subsequently goes to reside, scarcely needs authority for its support. The following cases, however, will.be found ip pQint:
Washington vs. Beaver (3 W. & S. 548); Lewis vs. Purbut (3 Harris, ,145); Lowell vs. Newport (66 Maine, 78); Springfield vs. Wilbraham, (4 Mass. 493); and Buck" land vs, .•Qhar’lemont, (3, Pick. 172).
Having;fpund that .Ann Sperry, the pauper in this .case, Was. of .sound mind and body, and well able to take care of herself when she arrived a,t the.age of ,21 years; and that at that time the settlement qf her father ,was Hunts ingdon Township, Lexeme County, we hold that Ann was then emancipated, and .that she .could not have a settlement derivatively from her father in Davidson Township, Sullivan .County, the district to which she removed with him after arriving of age, and in which he subsequently acquired a settlement.
The .order of remoyal, therefore, is vacated and discharged at. the costs of the appellees. Aadit is further ordered that the paupe,r be returned to the appellees,. and that they pay tQ the appellants the reasonable costs of her keeping and of her removal. If the pauper is dead — as we have heard since the argument of this case — it is ordered that the appellees pay to the appellants the reasonable cost of keeping until the time of her death, together with the reasonable expense of her burial.

Opinion:
Opinion by
OumfiN, p. J.
The federal court at Leavenworth, "Kan,, Judges Dillon and Foster presiding, rendered a, decision in the famous Pottawatomie land cases, affecting the title to, thousands of acres of lands in Shawnee, Wabaunsee, Jackson and Pottawatomie counties, in that State, the decision being a practical victory for the settlers.