Inhabitants of Lanesborough v. Inhabitants of Westfield
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit for the support of Jjucy Goman and William Hector Goman, jun., paupers, alleged by the plaintiffs to have their legal settlement-in Westfield.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for the support of Jjucy Goman and William Hector Goman, jun., paupers, alleged by the plaintiffs to have their legal settlement-in Westfield. It was agreed by the parties, that Plato and Flora his wife, parents of the said Lucy, were the slaves of one John [ * 75 ] * Bancroft, an inhabitant legally settled in Westfield, before the revolution; that the said Lucy was born in April, 1778, and continued with her said parents in the family of the said Bancroft, until the forming and adoption of the constitution of the commonwealth; that she resided in Westfield until the year 1803, when…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
The plaintiffs cannot prevail, unless Lucy Goman derived a settlement in Westfield from her parents, who had their settlement in that town derivatively from Bancroft, whose slaves they were. Now, it has been before settled that slaves did not communicate civil relations of any sort to their children (1). [f the *65child was bom a slave, its settlement was direct from the master, whose property it would be ; if born free, it could inherit neither disabilities nor privileges from its parents.
By the colonial law of 1646, no bond slavery could exist, except in the case of lawful captives taken in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Inhabitants of Winchendon v. Inhabitants of HatfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Inhabitants of Stockbridge v. Inhabitants of West StockbridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- Inhabitants of Andover v. Inhabitants of CantonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Inhabitants of Dighton v. Inhabitants of FreetownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808