Inhabitants of Shutesbury v. Inhabitants of Hadley
| Citation | 133 Mass. 242 |
| Parties | Inhabitants of Shutesbury v. Inhabitants of Hadley |
| Decision Date | 07 September 1882 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued September 21, 1881 [Syllabus Material]
Franklin. Contract for support furnished from June 1, 1878 to July 5, 1879, to Sarah Beals, whose settlement, through her husband, John Beals, was alleged to be in the defendant town. Trial in the Superior Court, before Colburn, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
It was agreed that John Beals was an alien and was never naturalized; that he was assessed and paid taxes in Hadley from 1837 to 1845, inclusive; and that he resided in Hadley until April 1, 1846, when he removed to Whately. It was also agreed that he was of age on April 1, 1836, or before. The main issue in the trial was whether John Beals was domiciled in Hadley on April 1, 1836, so as to give him a settlement there by a ten years' residence and five years' payment of taxes.
It appeared that in 1878 the town of Athol sued the town of Shutesbury for support furnished to Sarah Beals; that in that action Shutesbury set up in its answer that John Beals had his settlement in Hadley; that the question of his settlement was the only question in issue in that action; that, on filing the answer, Hadley was requested by Athol to assume the prosecution of the action, and did so, and employed counsel, and the counsel so employed conducted the suit, and obtained a judgment for the plaintiff, which was satisfied by Shutesbury.
Upon these facts, the defendant contended, and asked the judge to rule, that the plaintiff was estopped to raise and contest in the present action the question of John Beals's settlement as against the defendant. But the judge ruled that there was no estoppel; and the defendant excepted.
As tending, in connection with other evidence, to show that John Beals had his settlement in Hadley by a ten years' continuous residence there prior to April 1, 1846, the plaintiff offered in evidence a certified copy from the town clerk's records of Deerfield, purporting to be the copy of a marriage certificate made in April 1837, certifying that the magistrate joined John Beals and Mary Ann Horton (a former wife) in marriage on May 24, 1836, and describing John Beals as of "Hadley Upper Mills." One or more of the plaintiff's witnesses had testified that John Beals lived in Hadley several months before his first marriage, but were unable to fix the date of that marriage.
The defendant admitted that John Beals was married to Mary Ann Horton on May 24, 1836, but objected to the admissibility of the record to show any other fact there certified to, especially that John Beals was at the time a resident of "Hadley Upper Mills." But the judge admitted the certificate as prima facie evidence of the facts recited, and ruled that it was only prima facie evidence of John Beals's residence in Hadley on May 24, 1836, and not of his residence there prior to that date; and so instructed the jury. To the admission of this evidence the defendant excepted. It was admitted that Hadley Upper Mills was a part of Hadley.
The defendant contended that, John Beals being an alien when he died, in 1872, Hadley could not be charged for the support of his widow by virtue of any laws of this Commonwealth on the subject. But the judge ruled that the plaintiff might recover if a ten years' continuous residence of Beals in Hadley, with five years' payment of taxes, was made out; and the defendant excepted.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
C. Delano, for the defendant.
A. De Wolf, for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff contends that Sarah Beals had a settlement in the defendant town, in consequence of a settlement acquired by her husband, John Beals, under the St. of 1793, c. 34, § 2, cl. 12; the Rev. Sts. c. 45, § 1, cl. 12; the Gen. Sts. c. 69, § 1, cl. 12; and the Sts. of 1868, c. 328, § 1, and 1871, c. 379, § 1. Worcester v. Springfield, 127 Mass. 540. Endicott v. Hopkinton, 125 Mass. 521.
The judgment in the action of Athol against Shutesbury clearly did not estop Shutesbury from proving in this action against Hadley where the settlement of Sarah Beals in fact was. The town of Hadley was in no sense a party to that action, nor in privity with either of the parties. It claimed no rights in the action derived from the plaintiff, and was not vouched in by the defendant to defend the action. It was not responsible over to the town of Shutesbury, either by operation of law or by contract, for the damages obtained in that action. It prosecuted the suit, apparently, because Shutesbury, in denying the allegation of Athol that John Beals's settlement was in Shutesbury, had also averred that it was in Hadley. Evidence that it was in Hadley would undoubtedly be competent under this denial, because if it was in Hadley it was not at the same time in Shutesbury, but the issue between Athol and Shutesbury was whether the settlement was or was not in Shutesbury, as alleged, and in the determination of that issue Hadley had no interest, and was a stranger to the action. Braintree v. Hingham, 17 Mass. 432. As evidence tending to show that, on May 24, 1836, John Beals resided in Hadley, the judge admitted a certified copy from the town clerk's records of Deerfield, purporting to be the copy of a marriage certificate made in April 1837, certifying that the magistrate joined John Beals and Mary Ann Horton (a former wife) in marriage on May 24, 1836, and describing John Beals as of Hadley Upper Mills, which was a part of Hadley. It was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that John Beals had resided continuously in Hadley from April 1, 1836, to April 1, 1846. The judge admitted the certificate as prima facie evidence that John Beals's residence was in Hadley on May 24, 1836, and not of his residence there before that date. Several witnesses testified that John Beals lived in Hadley several months before his first marriage, and the defendant admitted that he was married to Mary Ann Horton on May 24, 1836. As it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove a residence "for the space of ten years together," the evidence was not immaterial.
The Revised Statutes, which went into effect from and after the last day of April 1836, provided, by c. 75, § 17, that "every justice and minister shall keep a record of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Slavski
...by overseers (Pells v. Webquish, 129 Mass. 469), record of certificate of marriage as showing residence of the husband (Shutesbury v. Hadley, 133 Mass. 242), copy of public documents (Whiton v. Albany City Ins. Co., 109 Mass. 24), state register of soldiers and municipalities to which credi......
-
Dow v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
...A.L.R. 1450;New England Trust Co. v. Farr (C.C.A.) 57 F.(2d) 103, 110; 3 Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 1646, p. 441. See Shutesbury v. Hadley, 133 Mass. 242, 246, 247;Shamlian v. Equitable Accident Co., 226 Mass. 67, 115 N.E. 46;Broadbent's Case, 240 Mass. 449, 452, 134 N.E. 632;Commonweal......
-
In re Derinza
...the substance of the law. Main v. County of Plymouth, 223 Mass. 66, 69, 111 N. E. 694, and cases collected. The discussion in Shutesbury v. Hadley, 133 Mass. 242, proceeds on the footing that this section of the statute applied only to domestic records. The only provision in our statutes as......
-
Commonwealth v. Bird
...reported are admissible in evidence and are prima facie evidence of the facts reported. Kennedy v. Doyle, 10 Allen, 161, 164;Shutesbury v. Hadley, 133 Mass. 242, 247. See Hanson v. South Scituate, 115 Mass. 336, 340;Worcester v. Northborough, 140 Mass. 397, 5 N. E. 270;Allen v. Kidd, 197 Ma......