
    The Inhabitants of Andover versus the Inhabitants of Chelmsford.
    The payment of highway taxes for five years, with the requisite residence of ten years, gives a settlement according to the 12th rule in the statute of 1793, c. 34, § 2.
    Assumpsit for money expended in the support of Ephraim Cory and his wife, alleged by the plaintiffs to be legally chargeable to Chelmsford. The action came up from the Common Pleas, upon exceptions by the plaintiffs to the opinion of that court, as delivered to the jury. The said Cory was born in Chelmsford, and had still his legal settlement in that town, unless he had acquired one in Andover. The evidence to prove him settled in this latter town was, that- he removed thither about the year 1762, being then twelve years of age, and had continued to dwell there until the time that the plaintiffs incurred the expense for his support; that from the year 1806 to the year 1814 inclusive, with the exception of the year 1810, he had been taxed in Andover forty-two cents each year for the repairs of the highways, and had in every instance paid said taxes by his labor on the highways. Upon this evidence the court oelow instructed the jury, that the residence of Cory in Andover for ten years, and the paying of these taxes for any five years within that period, gave him a settlement there, within the intent of the legislature, in the twelfth mode of acquiring a settlement, pointed out in the statute of 1793, c. 34, <§> 2.
    
      Spaulding, for the plaintiffs, contended that laboring in the repairs [ * 237 ] of highways was not the payment of a tax * within the meaning of the statute. Payment of taxes means a payment in money. But the law contemplates that these highway taxes are to be worked out, and with that view requires the surveyors to give “ six days’ notice of the times and places he shall appoint for laboring, &c., to the end each person may have opportunity to work on the highways,” &c. . This point has been directly decided by the Supreme Court of New York, in the case of The Overseers of Amenia vs. The Overseers of Stanford 
      . The only difference between the law of New York and that of Massachusetts, as to this subject, is that payment of taxes for two years there gives a settlement.
    
      B. Merrill, for the defendants.
    The highway taxes are assessed, like all other taxes, in money; and they must be paid in money, unless the party assessed avails himself of the privilege the statute gives, of commuting the tax by his labor. In the case of Billerica vs. Chelmsford 
      , the Court say, that “ the settlement does not depend upon the quantum of tax paid, or the species of tax ; but upon the assessment and payment of some tax, for the poll or estate.”
    
      
      
        Stat. 1786, c. 81.
    
    
      
       6 Johns. 92.
    
    
      
       10 Mass. 396.
    
   Per Curiam.

The direction of the Court of Common Pleas, upon the facts, was unquestionably right. The payment of a highway tax for the requisite number of years, coupled with the prescribed term of residence, is sufficient to give a settlement, within the 12th rule. That rule requires the payment for five years of such taxes only as shall be assessed. The case cited from New York does not apply. The statute of that state requires that the party shall have paid his share towards the public taxes of such city or town,” &c.

Judgment for the defendants on the verdict.  