Case Name: Salisbury v. Fairfield
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1789-08
Citations: 1 Root 131
Docket Number: 
Parties: Salisbury v. Fairfield.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
Salisbury v. Fairfield.
A ward has right to reside with Ms guardian -and such residence gains no settlement.
Action to recover pay for supporting one Samuel Allen a pauper. Issue to the jury.
The pauper was horn in A. D. 1757; his parents were then settled in Fair field; afterwards his father died. Ills grandfather, who also was set lied in Fairfield, took guardianship of him in A. 3). 17(54. Ilis mother married another lmshand, whose name was Allen, and was also settled in Fairfield. In A. D. 1706 his mother and her husband removed to Stamfoi*d; and in A. I). 17(58 bis grandfather and guardian removed with him to Stamford, he then being eleven years old; and he lived with his guardian in Stamford until he was fourteen years of age, when he chose a guardian, and was hound an apprentice to a master settled in, Stamford.
The question was — Whether the pauper had gained a ■settlement in Stamford. Verdict for the plaintiffs.

Opinion:
And
by the Court.
Tbe pauper's residing in Stamford as an apprentice gained no settlement; and Ms residing there with, bis guardian three years, gained no settlement, neither in right of his guardian, nor in Ms own right by commorancy; he was not a subject of being warned, nor might he be parted from his guardian during his minority; his residence therefore in Stamford was of necessity, and not by the approbation of the town of Stamford.
This judgment was affirmed in the Supreme Court of Errors..