Town of Gilford v. Town of Gilmanton
Superior Court of New Hampshire
THIS was an action of assumpsit, for money expended in the relief of one Betsey Smith, from July, 1813, to October, 1814. It was submitted on a statement, all the material facts in which were as follows: In A. D. 1789, Oliver Smith, the pauper’s ’father, moved into Gilmanton.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, for money expended in the relief of one Betsey Smith, from July, 1813, to October, 1814. It was submitted on a statement, all the material facts in which were as follows: In A. D. 1789, Oliver Smith, the pauper’s ’father, moved into Gilmanton. At that time she was about five years old ; and thenceforward, until A. D. 1805, except an absence of three years, Oliver Smith and his family resided, without being warned out, in that part of the town which still retains the name of Gilmanton. He then removed to that part of the town which is now called Gilford, but.…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
The father of Betsey Smith, by a residence of more than “ one year ” in Gilmanton before January 1st, 1796, acquired a settlement in that town. The pauper being one of his “ legitimate children,” must have the settlement of her father until she gains a “ settlement” of “her own.” To determine whether she hath or hath not gained a settlement of her own, it is necessary to consider the effect of her father’s removal in 1805 to what is now Gilford. For though his decease, previous to June, 1812, prevented his own settlement from being changed by the act of incorporation, yet the settlement of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lincoln v. HapgoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Inhabitants of Granby v. Inhabitants of AmherstMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Inhabitants of Abington v. Inhabitants of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Lazarus Barnet's Case, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1785