Inhabitants of West Springfield v. Inhabitants of Granville
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was assumpsit for meat, drink, &c., furnished to Jahez Dunham and his wife, alleged by the plaintiffs to- be paupers, having their legal settlement in Granville. The cause came before the Court upon a case stated by the parties, in which the only question submitted was, whether the paupers were settled or not in Gran-ville. The facts, as far as they are material to the question, will appear in the following opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
The paupers, having lived in Granville from April, 1760, to April, 1769, without having been warned to depart, agreeably to the provincial statutes in force before the act of 7 Geo. 3, c. 3, were unquestionably once settled in Granville. By the act last referred to, no person could, after the 10th of April, 1767, gain a settlement, by a residence for any length of time, in any town, without the approbation of the inhabitants given in town [*487] * meeting. And this statute remained unrepealed until the passing of the statute 1789, c. 14.
The settlement of the paupers being once in Granville, we…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Whitehead v. FoleyTexas Supreme Court · 1858
- Inhabitants of Norton v. Inhabitants of MansfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Inhabitants of Westport v. Inhabitants of DartmouthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Hatch v. KimballSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1836
- Inhabt's of New Portland v. Inabt's of RumfordSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1836
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.