Inhabitants of Dedham v. Inhabitants of Natick
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit for expenses incurred by the plaintiffs, in the support of-Edmunds. The action was submitted to the determination of the Court, upon the following case agreed by the parties.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for expenses incurred by the plaintiffs, in the support of-Edmunds. The action was submitted to the determination of the Court, upon the following case agreed by the parties. The pauper mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration is a legitimate daughter of one Samuel Edmunds, who never had a settlement in Dedham, but had his last legal settlement in Natick, if he could gain a settlement there under the circumstances herein after stated ; if not, then in some other town in the commonwealth. The territory, which is now the town of Natick, before the yeai 1745, was not incorporated, nor…
1Opinion of the CourtWilde, J.
There seems to be no doubt that Samuel Edmunds, *117the pauper’s father, had his last legal settlement in Natick. When that place was incorporated into a parish or precinct, it was competent for the legislature to impose conditions; and it was a reasonable condition to require the parish to support their own poor. They doubtless so considered it; for they accepted the act of incorporation, and probably, as is usual in such cases, it was granted at their request. That they considered themselves liable for the support of their poor, appears from the precautions they took to prevent strangers from…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Lámar v. MicouSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Glass v. GlassMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Horgan v. Pacific MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Gray v. DurlandNew York Supreme Court · 1867
- Thompson v. Georgia Railway & Power Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1927
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.