
    
      Ex parte Hunt.
    ™ A t (l R. L. 286. ring'a graud child to sup-gout 1,8 grand parents, ox-tends to the case of his indigent mater”entsfrand pa"
    At their last August term, the general sessions of Wash-ington county made an order on Hunt, (among others) pur suant to the statute, (1 R. L. 286, sect. 21,) to maintain W. g. and E. his wife, paupers, on the ground that Hunt’s fa-ther married the daughter of the paupers; and that Hunt was the son of that marriage, °
    
      D. Russell, moved for a mandamus, commanding the ses sions to vacate their order. He said the statute does not compel a man to maintain the indigent parents of his wife. (1 Bl. Com. 448, Christian’s note. Reeve’s Dom. Rel. 284. 2 Ld. Raym. 1454. 1 Str. 190. 4 T.R 118. Kirby’s Rep. 156.) Now, if the father of Hunt was not bound to maintain the paupers, clearly Hunt himself ought not to be bound. He would be bound to maintain the indigent parents of his father. If of his mother also, a most unreasonable burthen is thus imposed.
    The motion was not opposed; but
   Per curiam.

The statute is, that, the children and grandchildren shall maintain their indigent parents and grand parents. The paupers are the maternal grand parents of Hunt.

He is thus within the terms of the statute ; and we see no reason, in principle or authority, why he should be exempted. The authorities cited, exempt the son-in-law, on the ground that the statute means natural relations only, which’ is not this case. We have nothing to do with the question of expediency.

It is questionable whether a mandamus lies, the matter being res judicata in the court below. But whether it does or not, we are clear against the relator on the merits.

Motion denied.  