
    *The Inhabitants of Templeton versus The Inhabitants of Sterling.
    One holding an estate under a lease for four years, and afterwards a year by sufferance, of the value of sixty pounds, and being assessed therefor for the five years, does not thereby acquire a settlement.
    Assumpsit for the expense of supporting certain paupers, alleged by the plaintiffs to have their legal settlement in Sterling. On the trial, which was had before Putnam, J., the principal question concerned the settlement of Joseph Knowlton, one of the paupers — the facts relative to which were, that Knowlton was a lessee, for four years, of certain real estate in Sterling, which was set at more than sixty pounds in the valuation made by the assessors; that he was a tenant at sufferance of the same estate for one year after the expiration of the lease ; and that he was assessed for the same, for those five years, to state, county, and town taxes. Upon this evidence the plaintiffs contended that a settlement was gained, in the fifth manner prescribed in the statute of 1793, c. 34. But the judge was of a different opinion, and directed a verdict for the defendants, subject to the opinion of the Court, on the said direction.
    
      Wallcer, for the plaintiffs,
    contended that an estate at sufferance was an estate known and defined in the law, and he cited and relied on the case of Sudbury vs. Stow, 
       where this position was held by the Court in relation to the twelfth mode of gaining a settlement by the statute.
    
      
       13 Mass. Rep. 462.
    
   By the Court.

W e agree with the judge at the trial, in his construction of the statute. It is obvious that, in the fifth mode of acquiring a settlement, the owning of an estate is the principal thing; and it is necessary that there be a title, to bring the pauper within that mode of gaining a settlement; and nothing less than an estate for years will answer the requisition of the law in this particular.

The pauper, in the case before us, had an estate for four years only, and had no right to hold beyond that period; so that he cannot be considered as having an estate after the expiration of his lease.

*It is supposed, however, that a contrary doctrine was established in the case of Sudbury vs. Stow. In that case, the twelfth mode of acquiring a settlement was under the consideration of the Court, the principal ingredients of which are, the residence in any town for ten years, and the paying of all taxes duly assessed on the person’s poll or estate for any five years within the said ten years. If he have no estate, but pays a poll tax for five years, he gains a settlement under this rule, provided he resides in the town ten years. By the fifth mode, if he have an estate of the prescribed value, and is assessed for it five years in succession, he gains a settlement whether he pays the taxes or not. By the twelfth mode, if he pay the taxes assessed on him, it is immaterial whether he owns the estate or not, provided he be assessed for it as his own. There is, therefore, no discrepancy between the case cited and the decision in the case before us; in which judgment must be rendered according to the verdict.

Goodwin for the defendants. 
      
      
         Vide Westbrook vs. Gorham,, ante, 160.
     
      
      
         Sudbury vs. Waltham,, 13 Mass. R&p. 460.
     