Overseers of the Poor of Scaghticoke v. Overseers of the Poor of Brunswick

New York Supreme Court

Overseers of the Poor of Scaghticoke v. Overseers of the Poor of Brunswick

14 Johns. 199

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1817

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 Johns. 199 (Overseers of the Poor of Scaghticoke v. Overseers of the Poor of Brunswick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Overseers of the Poor of Scaghticoke v. Overseers of the Poor of Brunswick, 14 Johns. 199 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1817).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The two questions in this case are, 1. Whether the order of removal is not defective, in not adjudging that Scaghticoke was the last place of legal settlement of the pauper. 2. Whether the facts in the case show that- Scaghticoke was in reality the last place of legal settlement.

The ground on which this second point is attempted to be-supported, is the purchase of an estate in that town by the pauper’s father. The mere contract for the purchase of land will not satisfy this mode of acquiring a settlement. And although the act makes use of the term purchase, this necessarily implies that a title must be given. But, at all events, the consideration, to the amount of 75 dollars, must be paid ; and there is no evidence whatever that the father of the pauper ever paid any part of the consideration of his purchase. One witness says he supposed he paid 5007., but the witness did not pretend to know any thing about it; and the circumstances are very strong to show that he did not pay it. On the purchase he only got a bond for a deed, and it is proved that he never got a deed; by this bond the deed was to be given on the payment of the purchase money. It would, therefore, seem very reasonable to conclude that he would have had his deed if he had paid the consideration. He, afterwards, sold this bond to Levinus Lansing, The order of the sessions must, therefore, be reversed.

Order of sessions reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

The two questions in this case are, 1. Whether the order of removal is not defective, in not adjudging that Scaghticoke was the last place of legal settlement of the pauper. 2. Whether the facts in the case show that- Scaghticoke was in reality the last place of legal settlement.

The ground on which this second point is attempted to be-supported, is the purchase of an estate in that town by the pauper’s father. The mere contract for the purchase of land will not satisfy this mode of acquiring a settlement. And although the act makes use of the term purchase, this necessarily implies that a title must be given. But, at all events, the consideration, to the amount of 75 dollars, must be paid ; and there is no evidence whatever that the father of the pauper ever paid any part of the consideration of his purchase. One witness says he supposed he paid 5007., but the witness did not pretend to know any thing about it; and the circumstances are very strong to show that he did not pay it. On the purchase he only got a bond for a deed, and it is proved that he never got a deed; by this bond the deed was to be given on the payment of the purchase money. It would, therefore, seem very reasonable to conclude that he would have had his deed if he had paid the consideration. He, afterwards, sold this bond to Levinus Lansing, The order of the sessions must, therefore, be reversed.

Order of sessions reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Johns. 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overseers-of-the-poor-of-scaghticoke-v-overseers-of-the-poor-of-brunswick-nysupct-1817.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack