
    The Overseers of the poor of Blenheim against The Overseers of Windham.
    a. in i?r; inof and, about so j6&rs<i§0j por° ¿based loo Snr<the°f haí ten^Tctuateín town oí part of theiami partof C°f»r tw° EeaE“'A and boarded^ at that time, bn 10 years after» hk^nteresHn ^ time,” from present day.the board» umehe [" gj’ reside in vv. that The ’lamí 5°* '2^™ hersh vatent* no “estate or interest,” in ^LeTbyX thetlt'o/tha me ' w h ichs» iE ’ clearing the land, and boarding at the time in B-, did not change his place of settle me ¡remained m W.
    IN ERROR, from the general sessions of the peace of the county of Greene. This was an appeal from the order of the justices of the town of Windham, in the county of Greene, for <9 " the removal of Julius Agars, a pauper, from that town to the town of Blenheim, in the county of Schoharie, to the general sessions of the peace of the county of Greene. In 1777, Agars came into the town of Woodstock, in that part of it which is now Windham, and about 20 years ago purchased of Johannes Hardenbergh 100 acres of land for the consideration of 75 dollars, for which land he received a deed in fee ; but the deed, as 7 9 7 the witness testified, was lost. The person who drew the deed stated that the land was described as situated in the Hardenbergh patent, in the town of Woodstock and county of Ulster; but that in fact, the land lay in the town of Blenheim, in Schoharie county, and south of a line run for the north line of the Hardenbergh patent, called Coxe’s line. After the purchase, Agars took possession of the land, which was wild and covered with wood, and improved part of it, for two seasons; but, except during that time, when he boarded in Blenheim, he had resided in that part of Woodstock which is now Windham, since 1777, to the time of the order for his removal. It appeared that at the time of the conveyance to Agars, the land tvas claimed as part of Due’s ^ . * manor, and half of it was included in a lease to one Bartlett, and his son testified that he was well acquainted with the bounds, &c. and that the 100 acres purchased by Agars, lay within 
      Due's manor, and in the town of Blenheim. It was further proved, that about 12 years after Agars purchased the 100 acres, he sold all his interest and title in the land for a horse, to Alexander Boyd, who had previously purchased the title of Due.
    
    The appellants offered to prove, by the statutes, the boundaries of the counties of Ulster and Schoharie, and of the towns of Woodstock, Blenheim and Windham, and for that purpose also offered in evidence the map of the state; but this evidence was overruled by the court, who adjudged that the pauper's last place of legal settlement was in the town of Blenheim, in the county of Schoharie, and confirmed the order of the justices.
   Per Curiam.

The legal settlement of the pauper was originally in Windham, and the only question is, whether he acquired a settlement in Blenheim, by the purchase of the 100 acres of land of Johannes Hardenbergh, for the consideration of 75 dollars, which was paid. This deed was taken about 20 years ago, and the land was described as lying in the Hardenbergh patent in Ulster county, and it was understood to lie south of Coxe’s line. The pauper cleared, in one season, a part of the land and put in a crop of grain, which he gathered the next year. While he was so at work, he boarded in the town of Blenheim, but he resided there in no other way, nor at any other time; and from 1777, until his removal, he continued to reside in Windham. The 100 acres were at the time claimed adversely, and were in part covered by a lease, and were, undoubtedly, a nart of Due's manor, in Schoharie county, and lay north of the line of the Hardenbergh patent. The pauper afterwards sold his claim under the deed for a horse to one Boyd, who held under Due’s title.

Here was evidently a mistaken purchase. The lands were ■sold as part of the Hardenbergh patent, and, in fact, they did not lie in that patent, and so no “ estate or interest” in the town of Blenheim passed by the deed. Nor can the act of the pauper, in clearing a part, be deemed a title by possession in Blenheim sufficient to gain a residence. His domicil was never changed, and he only went occasionally on the land for a special purpose. The statute never meant that a settlement should be acquired by purchase, if no estate or interest known and valid in law passed, and here none was intended to pass but what was covered by the Hardenbergh patent.

The purchase ought, therefore, to be disregarded, and the order of the sessions quashed.

Order quashed.  