City of Fitchburg v. Inhabitants of Athol
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon an account annexed for money expended by the plaintiff for the support of Abigail Taylor, a pauper. Answer, a general denial.
Read the full summary
Contract upon an account annexed for money expended by the plaintiff for the support of Abigail Taylor, a pauper. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Dewey, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: There was evidence that the pauper was the lawful wife of Edwin Taylor, to whom she was married on August 2,1854. Edwin Taylor was the only son of Lucius Taylor, who formerly lived in the defendant town, but removed to Canada about the year 1854, and Edwin also moved to Canada about the year 1857 Neither Edwin nor Lucius Taylor has…
1Opinion of the CourtSoule, J.
The ruling of the presiding judge in the Superior Court was correct. The St. of 1874, c. 274, does not apply to the case. The husband, from whom it is contended that the pauper gained a settlement in the defendant town, never gained a settlement of his own in the Commonwealth, and voluntarily abandoned his residence here in the year 1857. His father, under whom it is contended that he has a derivative settlement, voluntarily ceased to reside in the Commonwealth in the year 1854, not having acquired any settlement; and neither has resided in the Commonwealth since. We do not think that the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- City of Somerville v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Endicott v. Inhabitants of HopkintonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- City of Worcester v. City of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
3Cited by2 opinions
- Inhabitants of Dedham v. Inhabitants of MiltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- City of Worcester v. Inhabitants of Great BarringtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885