Inhabitants of Lancaster v. Inhabitants of Sutton
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit to recover of the defendants the sum of 29 dollars, 17 cents, expended by the plaintiffs in the support [*118] * of one Sarah Savary. a pauper, whose settlement was alleged to be in Sutton.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit to recover of the defendants the sum of 29 dollars, 17 cents, expended by the plaintiffs in the support [*118] * of one Sarah Savary. a pauper, whose settlement was alleged to be in Sutton. Upon the trial of the action, upon the general issue, before the Court of Common Pleas, it was proved or admitted that the pauper once had a derivative settlement from her father, John Savary, in Sutton, where she was born in 1750 ; that she lived with her father as a member of his family, until he removed from that part of the country in 1802, when she removed with him; that the said John, at…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
* The principal question in this action is, whether John [ * 115 ] Savary, the father of the pauper, in consequence of the act of Green, his assignee, had his settlement transferred from Sutton to Ward.
By the provision of the act incorporating Ward, Savary was to *98remain an inhabitant of Sutton, until he, his heirs, or assigns, should terminate their connection with that town, in the manner therein prescribed. It cannot be the true construction of this provision, that the act of his assignee should affect his habitancy. Its true intent is, that his heirs and assigns should remain inhabitants…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bryant v. AllenSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Inhabitants of Great Barrington v. Inhabitants of LancasterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817