Inhabitants of Wareham v. Inhabitants of Milford
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Conteact to recover money paid by the plaintiffs for the support of Davis Dunham as a pauper in their almshouse from April 24, 1868, to April 24, 1869. At the trial in the superior court, before Seudder, J., the only issue was whether the pauper had his settlement with the defendants ; and the case was reported as follows: “ It was agreed by the parties that the pauper was bom in Wareham, February 3, 1822, and was an illegitimate child of a woman who had her settlement in…
Read the full summary
Conteact to recover money paid by the plaintiffs for the support of Davis Dunham as a pauper in their almshouse from April 24, 1868, to April 24, 1869. At the trial in the superior court, before Seudder, J., the only issue was whether the pauper had his settlement with the defendants ; and the case was reported as follows: “ It was agreed by the parties that the pauper was bom in Wareham, February 3, 1822, and was an illegitimate child of a woman who had her settlement in Wareham. He lived in Wareham until he was from seventeen to twenty years old, and then went to Fall River to reside. On…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The pauper, Davis Dunham, gained a settlement in Milford, by residing there for ten years together, and paying taxes for five years within that time, unless it is prevented by the fact that his wife during that time received some aid from the public authorities of Fall River. It appears by the report that this aid was furnished to the wife “ without his, the pauper’s, knowledge, and he has never been called upon for the payment of the same.”
A majority of the court are of opinion that this case is governed by Berkeley v. Taunton, 19 Pick. 480, and that aid thus furnished to his…
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of Somerville v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- City of Worcester v. City of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941