
    * The Inhabitants of Newton versus The Inhabitants of Braintree.
    Under the provincial act of 7 Geo. 3, c. 3, illegitimate children acquired no settle ment by birth, but had the settlement of their mother.
    Assumpsit for the support of a pauper, alleged by the plaintiffs to be legally chargeable to the town of Braintree. It was agreed that the pauper was the illegitimate child of Sarah Blanchard, otherwise called Sarah French, and was born in Newton in the year 1790. Sarah Blanchard, the mother of the pauper, was the illegitimate child of Sarah Blanchard the elder, and was born in that part of Braintree which still retains the corporate name, on the 3d of March, 1767. In the year 1773, Nathaniel French, who was the reputed father of the pauper’s mother, and who had a legal settlement in that part of Braintree which is now Randolph, married the said Sarah Blanchard the elder, and she resided there with her husband until his death, in 1780, and she continued to reside on the estate owned by her husband in that place until her death, in 1787. From the marriage of the said Sarah the elder, her daughter Sarah (the mother of the pauper) continued to reside with her until 1785 ; since which time neither she nor the pauper have acquired any legal settlement.
    If, on these facts, it should be the opinion of the Court that the pauper had a legal settlement in Braintree, judgment was to be rendered for the plaintiffs upon the default of the defendants, for a sum agreed by the parties; otherwise the plaintiffs were to become nonsuit.
    No argument was had, and the opinion of the Court was delivered at the last July term in Plymouth.
    
   Parker, C. J.

In the case of The Inhabitants of Petersham vs. The Inhabitants of Dana, it was decided that, by the statute of 1789, c. 14, an illegitimate child, which had the settlement of its mother at the time of its birth, would acquire a new settlement with the mother, until it should acquire one in its own right. * In the case of The Inhabitants of Boylston vs. The Inhabitants of Princeton, it was settled that, under the statute of 1793, c. 32, now in force, an illegitimate child retains the settlement derived from the mother at the time of its birth, without being affected by any settlement subsequently gained by the mother.

The construction of these two statutes being thus judicially settled, we have only to inquire how the case stood with respect to the settlement of illegitimate children before they were passed ; the pauper in question having gained a settlement in some place before those statutes were in force.

Under the provincial act of 7 Geo. 3, c. 3, illegitimate children acquired no settlement by birth, but had the settlement of their mother. At that period, the mother was capable of acquiring a new settlement by marriage; and the illegitimate child followed the settlement of the mother.

By the act incorporating the town of Randolph, the inhabitants of that town were held to support all such poor persons as, at the time of passing the act, were, or before had been, or thereafterwards should be, inhabitants of that part of Braintree incorporated as Randolph, who then were, or might afterwards become, chargeable.

The pauper in question acquired no settlement by her birth in Newton, but had the settlement of her mother. This latter originally had a settlement in Braintree, by virtue of the settlement of her mother, who was a native of, and had a settlement in, that town. But upon her intermarriage with French, she was subject to change her settlement with her husband. His settlement was in Randolph, by virtue of the provisions of the act incorporating that town His wife’s settlement was transferred with his; that of her illegitimate daughter followed ; and the pauper, who was the child of this daughter, has her legal settlement in the same place. So that this action cannot be maintained.

Plaintiffs nonsuit 
      
       12 Mass Rep. 429.
     
      
       13 Mass. Rep. 381
     
      
      
        Slat. 1792, c. 49
     