Case Name: Wayne Township versus Jersey Shore
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1875-04-01
Citations: 81 1/2 Pa. 264
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wayne Township versus Jersey Shore.
Judges: Before Agnew, C. J., Sharswood, Mercur, Gordon, Paxson, and Woodward, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 81 1/2
Pages: 264–266

Head Matter:
Wayne Township versus Jersey Shore.
1. Under the writ of error allowed by act of March 16th, 1868 (Poor), the Supreme Court can examine only the decisions in, the Quarter Sessions upon any point of evidence or of law.
2. The settlement of a pauper is prima fade the place of his birth until another be shown acquired derivatively, or by acts of his own.
3. Birthplace is the rule as to settlement as well to legitimates as to illegitimates, and is fixed by statute.
4. Lower Augusta v. Selinsgrove, 14 P. F. Smith, 366, followed; Lewis v. Turbut, 3 Harris, 145 ; Toby v. Madison, 8 Wright, 60; Washington v. Beaver, 3 W. & S., 548, cited.
March 26th, 1875.
Before Agnew, C. J., Sharswood, Mercur, Gordon, Paxson, and Woodward, JJ.
Error to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lycoming County, of January Term, 1875, No. 16.
This was an appeal by the overseers of the poor of Wayne township in the county of Clinton, from an order of .removal of Andrew J. Wagner, a pauper, from the district of Jersey Shore, in Lycoming County, to the district of the appellants. The appeal was en:ered January 23d, 1873.
The case was heal’d before Rockefeller, P. J., of the 8th Judicial District.
The pauper was an idiot, and the necessity for his relief arose in Jersey Shore; the overseers of the district alleging that Wayne township was the place of his settlement, ob- tamed the order for his removal there. It was conceded that Jersey Shore was not his place of settlement.
The pauper was the son of William Wagner, by Elizabeth Wagner, a second wife.
There was evidence by the appellant that in 1811 or 1812 William Wagner’s settlement was in Dunstable township, then Lycoming, now Clinton County. The appellees gave evidence to show that the father had gained settlement in Wayne township, aud from him the pauper derived his settlement. The Court found that the father never had a settlement in either of these townships from which the pauper could derive a settlement. The Court found also that the pauper was born in 1824, in Wayne township, where his father and mother then resided and continued to reside until his father’s death; that the pauper was an idiot, and could not, by his own act, acquire a settlement. The evidence was not clear as to the time when his father died, but probably not long after the pauper’s birth. The mother married again, and she and her husband moved to Porter township; the Court found that the husband did not gain a settlement there, hnt that if he had the wife herself gained only a derivative settlement from him which was not communicated to the pauper, he being a child by a former husband ; the settlement would remain where it was before the second marriage.
The appellants submitted a number of points; the third and its answer were:
“ The fact that Andrew Wagner was born in Wayne township does not give him a settlement there.”
Answer: “ 1 do hot find as requested in this point. I am of opinion that the'settlement of a pauper is the place of his birth until he acquires another derivatively from- his parents or by acts of his own. The father’s settlement is the settlement of the children when it can be found out, otherwise the birth of a child is prima facie the settlement of the child until another settlement is discovered.”
The Court confirmed the order of removal, at the costs of the overseers of the poor of Wayne township.
The overseers of Wayne township took a writ of error:
They assigned a number of errors; all except the seconds related to the finding of matters of fact.
The second was the answer of the Court to the defendant’s ■■ point as given above:
C. J. McCormick and It. P. Allen, for plaintiffs in error.
P. D. Pricker and H. P. Parsons, for defendants in error..

Opinion:
Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, April 1st, 1875.
Per Curiam:
Under the writ of error given by the act of March 16th, 1868, P. L., 46, 1 Br. Purd , 601, pi. 8, we can examine those exceptions only, taken in the Court of Quarter Sessions, which, are made to " any decision of the Cburt upon any point of evidence or of law:" Lower Augusta v. Selitisgrove, 14 P. E. Smith, 166. This being so, no question is left but that contained in the second assignment of error. T,he argument for the plaintiff in error oh this point is forcible, but we agree with the Court below, that the settlement of a pauper is prima facie the place of his birth until another can be shown, acquired derivatively or by acts of his own. The birthplace is the statutory rule in the case of illegitimates, and when no other is shown we think it is also the rule in the case of legitimates. In the absence of a derivative settlement from the father, or from the pauper's own acts, it seems to be the only intention left. It has been so understood heretofore in this Court: Washington v Beaver, 3 W. & S., 548; Lewis v. Turbut, 3 Harris, 145; Toby v. Madison, 8 Wright, 60.
Order of the Court of Quarter Sessions affirmed.