Case Name: The inhabitants of the town of Windsor against The inhabitants of the town of Hartford
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1817-11
Citations: 2 Conn. 355
Docket Number: 
Parties: The inhabitants of the town of Windsor against The inhabitants of the town of Hartford.
Judges: In this opinion the other Judges severally concurred, except Trtjmbtjix, J., who gave no opinion, being interested in the evqnt of the suit.
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
The inhabitants of the town of Windsor against The inhabitants of the town of Hartford.
Hartford,
November, 1817.
THIS was an action of assumpsit, fot' the support of Fanny Libbet, a pauper, and her two children.
Fanny was bom in Hartford, in the year 1785, and was the illegitimate daughter of Sarah, a slave of Jonathan Butter, who is, and always has been, an inhabitant of Hartford. When Fanny was about three years old, Jonathan Butler gave her, and with her the right to all her services, to his sou, Frederick Butler, an inhabitant of Wethersfield. She resided in Wethersfield, until she was twenty-five years old, when the term of her service by law expired. Sarah, the mother of Fanny, was sold by her master, Jonathan Butler, in the year 1795, to Ilexekiah Chaffee, an inhabitant of Windsor, and was emancipated by him in the year 1801. lie had previously received a certificate from the civil authority and selectmen of Windsor, pursuant to the statute, tit. 150. e. 2, s. 1. but neither the certificate nor letter of emancipation were ever recorded. Soon after Fanny’s term of service expired, she left Wethersfield, and went to Windsor, where site has ever since resided. Within six months after her going to Windsor, she became chargeable to that town. Her two illegitimate children mentioned in the declaration werp horn there. Upon this statement of facts the case was reserved for the consideration and advice of the nine Judges.
T. S. Williams and II. L. Ellsworth, for the plaintiffs,
co_. tended, that the settlement of Fanny, tiie pauper, Mas in Hartford, that being the place of her birth, and of her mother’s settlement % that she gained no settlement by her residence in Wethersfield, during her minority ; (Salisbury v. Fairfield, 1 Boot, 131. Huntington v. Oxford, 4 Day 189. 1 Swift’s Syst. 169.) and that she had no derivative settlement uiíh her mother, on her acquiring a new settlement in Windsor. Springfield v. Wilbraham, 4 Mass. Rep. 493, 496. They also contended, that as the certificate and letter of emancipation were not recorded, as required by statute, tit. 15⅞. e. 2. s. 2. Sarah was not so emancipated as to be capable of acquiring .a settlement independently of her master, and canid not. therefore, confer a new settlement on her offspring. They finally contended, that Fanny never was a slave, having been horn after the 1st day of March 1784. Stat. tit. 150. c. 1. s. 13. If she never was a slave, her settlement is clearly in Hartford, by birth.
The daughter of a female slave, born after the 1st of March, 1784, is not a slave, though lia. ble to be held in servitude until twenty-five years of age.
The set-tlemeot of such child ⅛ in the place of her birth.
Her settlement is J)ot changed by her residence in another town, with a mas. ter to whom she was assigned, until she arrived to the age of twenty-five years.
Nor is her settlement changed, on her mother’s gaining-a new settlement, by assignment to an inhabitant of another town j a slave being incapable of communicating a derivative settlement.
The settlement of an illegitimate child is that of its mother,
Edwards, for the defendants,
contended that whether Fanny, in technical strictness, was to be fermed a slave f or not, yet her condition was such that her master was as much bound to support her as one who is a slave for life ; that the entire rights of Jonathan Butler in relation to this servant, were transferred to Frederick Butler, of Wethersf eld, and consequently, all the duties of the former, one of which was to furnish support, devolved upon the latter ; that if she had not a settlement with her master, she had one with her mother in Windsor,

Opinion:
Swift, Ch. J.
Fanny, the pauper in question, was the child of a slave of Jonathan Butler of Hartford, and acquired a settlement, by birth, in the town of Hartford. She was free at the age of twenty-five $ and, of course, is to be considered as a free person, and never was a slave. During her residence with Frederick Butler, she is to be considered on the footing of an apprentice, or minor, living in another town, by the consent of parents or guardians ; and did not thereby gain any settlement in Wethersfield, She never gained a settlement in Windsor, in right of her mother j for the mother being a slave could communicate no such right. She must, of course, retain her settlement in Hartford, and her two children follow the place of her settlement.
I am of opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover.
In this opinion the other Judges severally concurred, except Trtjmbtjix, J., who gave no opinion, being interested in the evqnt of the suit.
Judgment to be given for plaintiffs.