
    The Inhabitants of Freetown versus the Inhabitants of Taunton.
    Minor children, having the settlement of their mother, do not, by the common law, acquire a new settlement gained by her marriage, although they remove with her to the place of such new settlement.
    Assumpsit for the support of William Cotton, a pauper, whom the plaintiffs alleged to have his legal settlement in Taunton.
    
    The pauper’s father was a foreigner; and his mother, previous to her marriage, was settled in Berkley, in the county of Bristol. They were married about the year 1742, and removed to New Jersey, where the pauper was born. His father dying, his mother returned, with her child, then about five years old, to Berkley. In 1755, the pauper being still under age, his mother was married to John Ingell, who had his settlement in Taunton. The pauper removed to Taunton with his mother, and resided a part of the time with her, and. a part of the time with one Jonathan Ingell, until he came of age; after which he returned to Berkley, but never acquired a settlement in his own right.
    
      H. Cushman, for the plaintiffs,
    relied on the general principle that, where a father has no legal settlement, the children take and follow the settlement of their mother .
    
      J. M. Williams, for the defendants,
    cited 1 L. Raym. 395, Rex vs. Inhabitants of Wangford. —Doug. 10. note. —3 Burn’s Justice, 374. —5 Burr. Settlement Cases, 2, St. Giles’s in the Fields vs. St. Clements.
    
    
      
      
        2 Strange, 746. Paulsbury vs. Wooden. -Burr. Settlement Cases, 367. Rex vs. St. Buttolph's. —Ibid. 64, Rex vs. Oulton.
      
    
   Parker, C. J.

By the common law, when the father has no settlement, the children of the marriage have the * set- [ * 53 ] tlement of the mother . The pauper, in the case before us, was born between the years 1701 and 1767, during which period the common law with respect to settlements prevailed here. The pauper therefore, at the time of his birth, had his lawful settlement in Berkley. This settlement he retains until the present time, unless he has since acquired a new one.

It is contended that, as his mother gained a derivative settlement in Taunton, by her marriage with Ingell, this was communicated to the pauper, who was then a minor, and went with his mother to Taunton, and lived with his step-father a part of the time, and part of the time with another person of the name of Ingell, in Taunton.

But it appears to be well settled, that at the common law, minor children, although they be removed with the mother to the place of settlement of her husband, did not thereby acquire a derivative settlement under the mother. They might be continued with the mother for nurture ; but their settlement was not changed thereby. This is distinctly settled in the cases cited by Mr. Williams for the defendants. The pauper, therefore, in this case, never gained a settlement in Taunton .

Plaintiffs nonsuit. 
      
      
        Com. Dig. Tit. Justices of Peace, B. 72. Parentage, and the cases there cited.
      
     
      
      
         [Dedham vs. Natick, post, 135. —Ed.]
     