Inhabitants of Stoughton v. City of Cambridge
| Decision Date | 26 February 1896 |
| Citation | 165 Mass. 251,43 N.E. 106 |
| Parties | INHABITANTS OF STOUGHTON v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Oscar A. Marden, for plaintiff.
G.A.A Pevey, for defendant.
According to the terms of the report, Thomas King, the husband, never had a settlement in this commonwealth, and his wife had none at the time of her marriage to him, and has gained none since, in Cambridge, unless she "resided" there for five years together, within the meaning of Pub.St. c. 83, § 1, cls. 6, 7. [1] The word "residence" is used in different senses. Generally in the laws relating to taxation, voting, and settlement, it means the same as "domicile." Usually it means the same in the law of divorce (Shaw v. Shaw, 98 Mass. 159), though with a well-recognized exception (Burlen v. Shannon, 115 Mass. 438, 447; Burtis v. Burtis, 161 Mass. 508, 37 N.E. 740). For the purpose of giving notice to an indorser, his place of residence implies less permanency of abode. Bank v. Fairbrother, 148 Mass. 181, 19 N.E. 345. We have now to do only with the meaning of the word "reside" under the pauper laws. It was assumed to mean the same as "domicile" in City of Worcester v. Inhabitants of Wilbraham, 13 Gray, 586, 589, and Inhabitants of Wilbraham v. Inhabitants of Ludlow, 99 Mass. 587, 591. Temporary absences do not effect a change of residence, under the pauper laws, any more than under laws relating to taxation. Inhabitants of Lee v. Inhabitants of Lenox, 15 Gray, 496; Inhabitants of Chicopee v. Inhabitants of Whately, 6 Allen, 508; Borland v. City of Boston, 132 Mass. 89; Greenfield v. Inhabitants of Buckland, 159 Mass. 491, 34 N.E. 952. Imprisonment does not change one's residence for taxation, settlement, or divorce. Hanson v. Hanson, 111 Mass. 158, 160. It was said in Marden v. City of Boston, 155 Mass. 359, 361, 29 N.E. 588, that the purpose of St.1874, c. 274, § 2 (now Pub.St. c. 83, § 1, cl. 7), was to place married women on the same footing, in respect to the acquisition of a settlement, as widows and unmarried women. Nevertheless, it still remains the law of Massachusetts that ordinarily a married woman's domicile is that of her husband. Burtis v. Burtis, 161 Mass. 508, 37 N.E. 740; Watkins v. Watkins, 135 Mass. 83, 85. There is nothing in the facts of the present case to show that the domicile or residence of Mrs. King was different from that of her husband. His residence was in Cambridge from 1872 till 1885, though he gained no settlement thereby, for want of being taxed often enough. [1] Her residence followed his, and by virtue of Pub.St. c. 83, § 1, cls. 6, 7, she gained a settlement by reason of her residence, though he did not; and by clause 2 [1] of the same section the children followed her settlement. The ruling and finding of the court were therefore right. Judgment for the plaintiff.
---------
Notes:
[1] Pub.St c. 83 (), § 1, cl. 1 provides that a wife shall have the settlement of her husband, if he have any; otherwise, her own, if she have any when married, shall not be lost. Clause 2 gives the children the settlement of the mother, if the father has none. Clause 5 makes payment of taxes a condition precedent of a settlement by a man. Clause 6 provides that any woman...
To continue reading
Request your trial