Legal Opinion

Weare v. Deering

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 5, 1880PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Assumpsit for relief furnished a pauper, being the same case reported in 58 N. H. 206. Facts found by a referee, who reported for the plaintiff, stating no facts raising any new question of law.

1Opinion of the CourtClabk, J.

It is contended that the pauper acquired a settlement in Weare by the ownership of real estate and the payment of all taxes duly assessed upon him and his estate for four years in succession. It does not appear that he ever paid a tax in Weare, or that any tax was ever assessed against him in that town. The farm, in which it is claimed he owned a life estate, was taxed to, and the taxes paid by, anothei’. It has already been decided in this case that the pauper could not gain a settlement in the fourth method without being in some legal sense the payer of the taxes duly assessed on his…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Olney v. RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1904
  2. Seeton v. DunbartonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
  3. County of Coos v. BerlinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1918

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API