Inhabitants of Upton v. Inhabitants of Northbridge

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Inhabitants of Upton v. Inhabitants of Northbridge

15 Mass. 237

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1818

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 15 Mass. 237 (Inhabitants of Upton v. Inhabitants of Northbridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Inhabitants of Upton v. Inhabitants of Northbridge, 15 Mass. 237 (Mass. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker, C. J.

This case presents an important question, which seems yet to have been left unsettled. The pauper for whose support the suit is brought is found by the jury to have been non compos mentis; and, from the facts proved, it is to be presumed that he has been so a nativitate. In 1793, the pauper’s father had his settlement in Northbridge ; and the pauper was then twenty-one years of age, and, but for his imbecility, was capable of acquiring a settlement himself. The removal of his father to Upton, and his regaining a settlement, would not, but for the cause aforesaid, have carried with it the settlement of the pauper, but his settlement would have remained in Northbridge until he had gained a new one in his own right.

We are clear that, being non compos, he remained one of his father’s family, and continued to derive his settlement under him. The pauper was not capable of any act by which he could gain a settlement for himself; and therefore, like a slave in former times, or a wife, or minor children, his settlement changed with that of his father.

As to the objections which have been raised in the argument that a non compos may inherit land, or may, by possibility, acquire property in other ways, we do not mean to decide that a person so circumstanced cannot, by virtue of his estate, acquire a settlement. [221]*221It has been decided that minors who are forisfamiliated, may, under the statute of 1789, c. 14, by occupancy of estate belonging to them, acquire a settlement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Parker, C. J.

This case presents an important question, which seems yet to have been left unsettled. The pauper for whose support the suit is brought is found by the jury to have been non compos mentis; and, from the facts proved, it is to be presumed that he has been so a nativitate. In 1793, the pauper’s father had his settlement in Northbridge ; and the pauper was then twenty-one years of age, and, but for his imbecility, was capable of acquiring a settlement himself. The removal of his father to Upton, and his regaining a settlement, would not, but for the cause aforesaid, have carried with it the settlement of the pauper, but his settlement would have remained in Northbridge until he had gained a new one in his own right.

We are clear that, being non compos, he remained one of his father’s family, and continued to derive his settlement under him. The pauper was not capable of any act by which he could gain a settlement for himself; and therefore, like a slave in former times, or a wife, or minor children, his settlement changed with that of his father.

As to the objections which have been raised in the argument that a non compos may inherit land, or may, by possibility, acquire property in other ways, we do not mean to decide that a person so circumstanced cannot, by virtue of his estate, acquire a settlement. [221]*221It has been decided that minors who are forisfamiliated, may, under the statute of 1789, c. 14, by occupancy of estate belonging to them, acquire a settlement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Mass. 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inhabitants-of-upton-v-inhabitants-of-northbridge-mass-1818.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack