Inhabitants of Abington v. Inhabitants of North Bridgewater
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit for expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in support of Susannah Hill, a pauper, whose settlement was alleged to be in North Bridgewater. This town, until 1821, was a part of Bridgewater, but in reference to this case the acts of Bridgewater may be regarded and spoken of as the acts of North Bridgewater.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in support of Susannah Hill, a pauper, whose settlement was alleged to be in North Bridgewater. This town, until 1821, was a part of Bridgewater, but in reference to this case the acts of Bridgewater may be regarded and spoken of as the acts of North Bridgewater. At the trial, before Morton J., it appeared, that the settlement of the pauper depended upon that of her grandfather, Ebenezer Hill, and that his original settlement was in Abmgton. The plaintiffs contended, that Ebenezer Hill acquired a settlement in North Bridgewater by removing…
1Opinion of the Court
Putnam J.
afterward drew up the opinion of the Court.
The plaintiffs contend, that the settlement of the pauper was in North Bridgewater, being derived from her ancestor, Ebenezer Hill, who resided there one year before April 10th, 1767, without being legally warned to depart therefrom. His settle*173ment was originally in Abington, and must continue, unless that town shall prove that he acquired another settlement within the Commonwealth. To prove that he resided in North Bridge-water in 1764, a copy of a record of the Court of Sessions, of a warrant to the constables of North Bridgewater, was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Manning v. WheatlandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Inhabitants of Billerica v. Inhabitants of ChelmsfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by2 opinions
- Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2018
- Trump v. BarbaraSupreme Court of the United States · 2026