Inhabitants of Winthrop v. Inhabitants of Auburn
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit for supplies furnished to Elias Chick and family as paupers. It was admitted that Chick had gained a settlement in Minot by residing and having his home more than five years in that part of it which, on the 24th of February, 1842, was incorporated into the town of Auburn. The defendants contended that, if the pauper did not actually dwell and have his home in the bounds of Auburn, at the time of its incorporation, that town is not liable in this action.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for supplies furnished to Elias Chick and family as paupers. It was admitted that Chick had gained a settlement in Minot by residing and having his home more than five years in that part of it which, on the 24th of February, 1842, was incorporated into the town of Auburn. The defendants contended that, if the pauper did not actually dwell and have his home in the bounds of Auburn, at the time of its incorporation, that town is not liable in this action. It was proved that Chick removed into the town of Winthrop, in January, 1836, and there was evidence tending to show that he had…
1Opinion of the CourtHoward, J.
The town of Minot was divided in 1842, and one portion of it incorporated as the town of Auburn. From facts admitted, it appears, that Elias Chick, the alleged pauper, had acquired a legal settlement in Minot, on that part of the territory thus incorporated, prior to January 6, 1836; although he did not reside in either of those towns at the date of the incorporation of Auburn.
The settlement thus acquired, continued until lost, or defeated, by gaining a new settlement, in some of the modes prescribed by statute. Act of 1821, c. 122, § 2; R. S. c. 32, § 1, 2. By the act by which Minot was…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Langford v. PoppeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880