
    The Inhabitants of Greene versus The Inhabitants of Monmouth.
    Where, in an action against the town of A, for expenses incurred by the town of B, in the support of a pauper, it appeared that the pauper’s settlement was not in A, but that the defendants were estopped from denying the settlement, and a verdict was given against them; the Court refused to set aside the verdict, for the purpose of permitting the defendants to pay the money found due by the verdict, and thus prevent a judgment, which would bar them upon the question of settlement, as to any after expenses.
    This was an action of assumpsit, commenced November 1, 1808, to recover the sum of 158 dollars 32 cents, for the support of a pauper, from November 1, 1806, to November 1, 1808, at 1 dollar 33 cents per week, and for 24 dollars for .clothing, furnished the pauper during the said term; the plaintiffs alleging the pauper’s legal settlement to be in Monmouth.
    
    
      * This action was tried at an adjournment of the last [ * 468 ] October term, in this county, before Thatcher, J., whose report states, that it was in evidence at the trial, that on the 15th of December, 1806, the overseers of the poor of the town of Greene gave notice to the overseers of the poor of Monmouth, in due form of law, and requested a removal of the pauper to Monmouth. Such removal was not effected, nor any answer given to said notice, or objection made thereto, within two months. The father of the pauper was duly settled in Greene before the birth of the pauper, which was on the 10th of January, 1782. After the pauper had attained the age of 21 years, and before the expenses now demanded were incurred, the father removed with his family, of which the pauper was one, into Monmouth, and there gained a settlement. In January, 1807, the father again removed with his family to Collegetouin plantation, and there lived until and after the 28th of February, 1807, on which day the said plantation was incorporated into a town by the name of Dixmont. It was further proved that said pauper, ever since he was three years old, has been a cripple, and wholly incapable of doing any work, or of gaining his support; but that his mind was not impaired.
    It was also in evidence, that the overseers of Greene, about six years ago, and before the father had gained a settlement in Morumouth, at the request of the overseers of Monmouth, removed the pauper to Greene, and have ever since maintained him.
    The defendants had leave of Court, although opposed by the plaintiffs, to bring into Court, on the common rule, and lodge with the clerk for the use of the plaintiffs, the sum of 24 dollars, being the amount of the expenses incurred in the support of the pauper up to the time of the notice given as aforesaid, and for two months next following; and also another sum of 129 dollars, being the plaintiff’s costs of suit to that time.
    [#409] *A verdict was found for the plaintiffs for the sum demanded by them, subject to the opinion of the Court on the foregoing facts ; it being agreed, that if the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiffs are by law entitled to maintain this action, or that the defendants are barred, from contesting the pauper’s settlement by reason of the notice aforesaid, and the omission to answer or object to the same, the verdict should stand, and judgment be entered thereon, deducting the 24 dollars paid into Court by the defendants. But if the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiffs are not by law entitled to maintain their action, the verdict should be set aside, and a nonsuit entered. In either case the plaintiffs were to receive the sums paid into Court by the defendants.
    Mellen, of counsel for the defendants,
    was very clear that the pauper had no legal settlement in Monmouth. When his father acquired his settlement there, this son was of full age, and so could gain no derivative settlement from his father. The plaintiffs rely on the estoppel furnished by the statute upon the lapse of two months from the notice without removal or objections. But in the case of Leicester vs. Rehoboth,  where the money had been paid, the defendants were not estopped to deny the settlement in an action for posterior expenses. The defendants, having here paid the money before verdict, with all costs, are equitably entitled to the benefit of that decision.
    Upon a suggestion from the Court, that if the position taken by Mellen were correct, yet the defendants were not within it; for the verdict was still against them, notwithstanding the money brought into Court by them: Mellen then moved that the verdict might be set aside, in order that the defendants might have opportunity to bring in the whole sum.
    
      
       4 Mass. Rep. 180.
    
   Per Curiam..

We cannot grant the motion. We must govern ourselves by principles settled. The plaintiffs have a right to the benefit of the estoppel in this last stage of the cause. [ * 470 ] Perhaps, if the defendants had, during the trial, * brought into Court the whole sum due from them, with the costs, and thus complete justice had been done, we might then have thought them, on equitable considerations, within the principle of the decision in the case of Leicester vs. Rehoboth, and might have ordered a stay of proceedings; or, if the plaintiffs had objected to that course, the cause might have been again sent to the jury, who would have found a verdict for the defendants; so that no judgment would have been entered to bar them upon the question of settlement, as to any further expenses. But we cannot now set aside the verdict, for the purpose of giving them an opportunity of paying into Court what that verdict has proved to be due from them, without consent, the plaintiffs being entitled to the benefit of the agreement made in the case.

Let the verdict be amended by deducting the 24 dollars paid, and let judgment be then entered upon it.  