Fremont v. Sandown

• Decision Date: 20 March 1876
• Citation: 56 N.H. 300
• Parties: Fremont v. Sandown.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

56 N.H. 300

Fremont v. Sandown.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

March 20, 1876

Pauper---Settlement---Marriage of infant.

The marriage of a female infant prevented her taking an after acquired settlement of her father, under Revised Statutes chapter 65, section 1

From ROCKINGHAM Circuit Court

The following facts, having been reported by a referee, are, by agreement of the parties, submitted to the superior court for such judgment thereon as they may order:

"The action is assumpsit, commenced on March 7, 1874, for the support of Mrs. Maggie French and her three minor children alleged to be paupers and to have their settlement in said town of Sandown. It appeared in evidence that the said Maggie French and her three minor children, aged five, three, and two years, were in said town of Fremont on November 13, 1873 and from that day until the date of the writ, and were poor and unable to support themselves, and stood in need of relief, and were furnished by the overseers of the poor of said town of Fremont with necessary support, to the amount of twenty dollars, between that day and January 20, 1874; that the selectmen and overseers of the poor of said Fremont, on said January 20, 1874, made cut a notice in writing under their hands to the said town of Sandown, in the usual form stating the amount thus furnished for the support of the said Maggie French and her three minor children, which notice was duly served upon said town of Sandown on January 21, 1874, and was duly returned to the clerk of the supreme judicial court on February 5, 1874. The defendants excepted to this notice, on the ground that the notice did not give the names of the minor children, and how much had been expended for each person.

"In order to show that the said paupers had their settlement in the said town of Sandown, the plaintiffs proved that the said Maggie French was lawfully married, on May 22, 1869, to Benjamin F. French, and had by him the said three minor children; that the said Benjamin was the son of Edmund M. French, who never had any settlement in this state; that the said Edmund M. French was lawfully married, on January 18, 1842, to Polly Jane Hoyt, a daughter of Benjamin Hoyt, of said Sandown, and had by her his said son Benjamin; that the said Benjamin Hoyt lived and was taxed in said Sandown for his poll, and for his estate, exceeding four hundred dollars in value, in the year 1840, and in every year from that year to the year 1849, inclusive; that the said Benjamin Hoyt paid all the taxes which were assessed against him on his estate during those years, and that he died in the year 1849; and that the said Polly Jane Hoyt was born on the fourth day of October, A. D. 1826; and that the said Benjamin French had no settlement in the state unless he had his settlement in said town of Sandown."

Wood, for the plaintiffs. Hatch, for the defendants

LADD, J

The case does not show that Mrs. French and her three children (the oldest five and the youngest three years old) did not constitute one family at the time they were relieved by the overseers of the poor of Fremont, nor that she had other children than the three mentioned in the notice. If inferences were to be drawn, the inference certainly would be that the mother and three young children did constitute one family; and, inasmuch as she was married in 1869, and the oldest child is five years old, there is, to say the least no ground for inferring that she had other children. In New Boston v. Dunbarton, 12 N.H. 409, the notice was for the support of a parent and her four minor children. It appeared at the trial that she had more than four children who were minors; and the court held the notice insufficient, on the ground that it was left uncertain by the notice which were relieved. No such element of uncertainty was brought into this case at the trial; and I think, upon the authority of this case, and Barnstead v. Strafford, 8 N.H. 142, where it was unnecessary to specify the sums expended for each individual in case several persons constituting one family are supported together, the objections to the notice must be overruled.

The plaintiffs claim that Mrs. French and her children have a settlement in Sandown, derived through Benjamin F. French the father of the children, from his mother, Polly Jane Hoyt; and the question is, whether, under the statutes in force from 1842 to 1847,---that is, from the time of the marriage to the time when Polly Jane Hoyt attained her majority,---the marriage of a female infant to one who has no settlement in this state precludes her from taking a settlement acquired during that time by her father. The statute was,---"Legitimate children shall have the settlement of their father, if any he has, within this state; otherwise the settlement of their mother, if any she has, until they gain a settlement of their own." Rev. Stats, ch. 65, sec. 1. In Springfield v. Wilbraham, 4 Mass. 495, PARSONS, C. J., says of the Massachusetts statute of 1793, which is identical with our statute above quoted,---"If these words are taken literally, then a son of full age, who had left his father and had become the head and father of his own family, if he had gained no new settlement, would follow any new settlement acquired by his father after the son had left him. This could never have been the intention of the legislature. The object of this provision was to regulate the derivative settlement of legitimate children, who, when emancipated, are no longer in a condition to derive a settlement from their father. It was accordingly held in that state, in Charlestown v. Boston, 13 Mass. 469, that the marriage of a female infant would prevent her taking the after acquired settlement of her mother. The decision is put on the ground that, upon her marriage, ...