
    The Inhabitants of SANFORD v. The Inhabitants of HOLLIS.
    The wife of an alien, having her lawful settlement in this State, together with their children, being paupers, are to be supported by the town where that settlement may be ; — though the husband, and of course the family may require and receive relief as paupers in the first instance from another town1, in which they happen to reside, under Slat. 1821, ch. 122, sec. 18.-
    This was an action of assumpsit for the support of Joseph Temple and his family as paupers, and came before the Court upon a case stated by the parties.
    
      Temple was an alien born, having no legal settlement in Massachuselts. His wife, at the time of the marriage, had her settlement in Hollis; but at the time of passing the act of March 21, 1821 respecting the settlement and support of the poor, and for several years previous, they resided as housekeepers, with their family, in Sanford.
    
    From May 1818 to April 13, 1819 they were supported by Sanford, for which support an action was brought against Hollis, which the latter town adjusted by payment of the debt and costs ; and at the same time entered into contract with an individual in Sanford, to supply them with necessaries at the expense of the town of Hollis, which he continued to do from that time till September 22, 1821, and was paid accordingly; the paupers residing in Sanford during all this period, with the consent of the inhabitants of Hollis. Temple was put on the list of State-paupers, soon after he first became chargeable in Sanford, at the request of the inhabitants of Hollis, who received of the State the expenses of his support, till March 21, 1821.
    On the 21st of September 1821 Hollis rescinded the contract made for the support of the paupers, for whose subsequent expenses this action was brought. The legal notice and reply were admitted.
    
      Burleigf, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Temple, being a foreigner, must be supported in the town where his wife has her settlement; and the fact of their being at board in Sa,nford, at the expense of Hollis, does not vary the case, for that very reason. Upon any other construction of the statute, the husband and wife will be separated, which is not to be permitted.
    
      Shepley, for the defendants.
    The Stat. 1821, ch. 122. sec. 18. requires overseers of the poor to relieve and support “ all poor persons residing or found “ in their towns, having no lawful settlements within this State.” Temple was “ residing and found” within Sanford; — and the words of the Statute being thus satisfied, Sanford is bound to support him. The provisions respecting the settlement and support of the poor are arbitrarily assumed, and therefore always receive a literal construction. There is no moral obligation, no right or wrong, in the case. The only subject of inquiry is the literal meaning of the law. Townsend ¶. Billerica, 10 Mass. 414. Billerica v. Chelmsford, 10 Mass. 397.
    The wife’s settlement in Hollis makes no difference, That town had paid something for their support, tis true; but it was under a mistake as to their legal rights. They were not bound to support the paupers till they were removed to Hollis. 13 Mass. 504.
    
      The adjudged cases are, that the husband and wife shall nov be separated. The statute says that a poor foreigner shall be supported by the town where he is “ residing or found —and if so, then his family also, for they cannot be taken from him. Thus the law is consistent. It is the temporary settlement of the foreigner, — determined, like all cases pf permanent settlement, by the mere arbitrary and positive enactments of the statute; and carrying with it, as in all other cases, the settlements of his family.
    Burleigh, in reply.
    A foreigner gains no settlement. The words of the statute,' sec. 18. are, “, having no settlement.” And if he has none, he can give none to the wife; and therefore she does not lose the settlement which she had at the time of the marriage, which was in Hollis. Shirley v. Watertown, 3 Mass. 323. Hallowelf V. Gardiner, 1 Greenl. 93.
   Mellen C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

By the statement of facts it appears that Joseph Temple is a foreigner by birth, and has never gained any settlement in Massachusetts. It also appears that his wife, at the time of her marriage with him, had her legal settlement in Hollis.

It was contended by the counsel for the defendants that Joseph Temple, since the separation of Maine from Massachusetts, had gained a settlement in Sanford by residing wjth his family in that town on the 21st of March 1821, being the day on which the act relating to the poor was enacted in this State. — In the seventh mode, pointed out in the second section, of gaining a settlement it is provided thus : — “ Any person resident in any town <£ at the date of the passage of this act, who has not within one “year previous to that date received support or supplies from “ some town as á pauper, shall be deemed to have a settlement in “ the,town w'here he then dwells and has his home.” It appears that Temple, though living at that time in Sanford, had received support and supplies within one year previous to the passing of the act. Of course he gained no settlement in this, manner.

It was next contended that he had gained one, in. virtue of the 18th section of the act abovementioned. — .The part of the section relied on is in these woi’ds: — “ Be it enacted that said “ Overseers shall also relieve and support, and, in case of their decease, decently bury, all poor persons residing or found in “ their towns, having no lawful settlements within this State, “ when they stand in need ; and may employ them, as other paupers may be; the expense whereof may be recovered of “ their relations, if they have any chargeable by law for their “ support, in manner herein before pointed out; otherwise it “ shall be paid out of the respective town-treasuries.” — This section, is not designed to designate the mpde of gaining a settlement. — r-It proceeds on the ground that the persons supplied have no legal settlement in the State, — Besides, the second sec? tion of the act points out the several modes of gaining legal settlements and provides that they shall not be gained “ other? “ wise.”

As the husband has never gained any settlement in this'State, the settlement of the wife has not Teen “ lost'or suspended by “ the marriage” — and for the same reason, the children “ follow “ and have the settlement of the mother”' — according to the provisions qf the second section as to the first and second mode of gaining settlements.

But it was further urged that, even if the wife and children must be considered as having their settlements in Hollis, still nothing can be recovered in this action, inasmuch as they have not been removed from Sanford to Hollis. — This objection was supposed to be founded on the decision in the case of Cam? bridge v. Charlestown, cited in the argument. Upon looking in-, fo that case, it appears tq have been a question depending upon a clause in the first mode pointed out in the second section of fhe act of Massachusetts of 1793, ch. 34. which js in these words, — “ And in case the wife shall be removed to her settle? “ ment, and the husband shall want relief from the State, he ^ shall receive it in the town where his wife shall have her set? “ tlement, at the expense pf the Commonwealth.” — As it was not intended by our Legislature, at the time they revised the poor, laws of Massachusetts, that any paupers should be supported .by the State, the clause above quoted was struck out, and no| enacted 5 inasmuch as it would not comport with the system which was adopted.

The result of this examination is, that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the expenses incurred by them in supporting the wife and children of Joseph Temple; but not Temple himself — * and judgment must be entered accordingly.  