
    The Inhabitants of East Sudbury versus The Inhabitants of Waltham.
    One, having his legal settlement in A., resided ten years in B., and paid taxes there more than five years of those ten ; but, before the expiration of the ten years, he became poor, and was relieved by the overseers of A., but was not removed. It was holden, that he acquired no settlement in B. f
    1 See Inhabitants of Southbridge vs. Inhabitants of Charlton, 15 Mass Rep. 248.
    This action was assumpsit for the support of one Ephraim Flagg, a pauper, alleged by the plaintiffs to have his legal settlement in Waltham.
    
    The parties submitted the cause to the determination of the Court upon the following case.
    
      “ The said pauper was born in Waltham, and had his legal settlement there. In March, 1803, he purchased some real estate in East Sudbury, of the yearly income of $26, and soon after removed to that town, and paid taxes for said real estate until February, 1805, when be sold the same. He continued to reside in East Sudbury, and paid taxes there for his poll for the four following years, and for personal estate valued in 1806 at $115, in 1807 at $4, in 1808 at $20, and in 1809 at $29. In 1810 he was taxed for his poll only.
    “In 1811 he became poor, and unable to maintain himself and his family, and on the 16th of May, in that year, applied to the overseers of East Sudbury for assistance, who, on the same day, wrote to the overseers of Waltham, informing them of the above facts, and requesting them to pay the expenses incurred in the support of Flagg and his family, and to cause their removal to Waltham. The overseers of Waltham returned no answer to the said communication ; but inquired into the facts relative to the time *and manner of Flagg’s residence in East Sudbury, and paid the said expenses, but did not remove him to Waltham.
    
    “ The pauper and his family continued to reside in East Sudbury until the commencement of this action, but received no further assistance from that town until the 4th of February, 1814, at which time he again applied to the overseers of said town for further assistance in his support and maintenance, which was accordingly furnished. On the last mentioned day, the said overseers again wrote to the overseers of Waltham, informing them of his having again applied to them for assistance, and requesting them to pay the expense, and causo his removal. This letter was duly received, and an answer returned within two months, denying the legal settlement of the pauper to be in Waltham.”
    
    Judgment was to be rendered upon a nonsuit or default, as the opinion of the Court should be upon the foregoing facts.
    
      Fiske, for the plaintiffs.
    The pauper has his legal settlement in Waltham, unless he has acquired a new one in East Sudbury. He held real estate but for two years in the last-mentioned town, and he resided there but eight years before he became chargeable. At that time Waltham recognized him as chargeable to them, by paying for the supplies furnished him. There is, then, no pretence for his acquiring a settlement in East Sudbury, unless a pauper can acquire a settlement by residence, at the same time that he is supported by his town.
    
      Thaxter, for the defendants.
    The pauper acquired a settlement in East Sudbury, in the twelfth mode prescribed in the statute of 1793, c. 34, by residing in that town for the space of ten years together, and paying all taxes duly assessed on his poll or estate for five years within said time. To show that the defendants are not estopped by
    
      having paid the expenses, which accrued in 1811, without answering the notice from the overseers of East Sudbury, the cases of Leicester vs. Rehoboth,  and Bridgewater vs. Dartmouth, 
      
       are in point.
    
      * Ward, for the plaintiffs, in reply.
    The cases cited have no bearing on the case at bar. The facts here show, that the settlement of the pauper was in Waltham, not because the defendants are estopped to deny it, but because they admitted it. A residence in a town, while actually receiving support as a pauper can never give a settlement.
    
      
       4 Mass. Rep. 180.
    
    
      
      
        Ibid., 273.
    
   Parker, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question in this case is, whether the pauper gained a settlement in East Sudbury by ten years’ residence in that town, notwithstanding his having become chargeable, and having been supported, during that term, by Waltham, the place of his former settlement.

We think that the provision of the statute, relied on by the defendants, ought not to receive such a construction. In 1811, when the pauper became chargeable, Waltham was liable for his support, upon due notice. That notice was given, and Waltham, instead of removing the pauper as they might have done, supplied his necessities in East Sudbury. This latter town was under no legal obligation to remove the pauper, under these circumstances ; but might well rely on the liability of Waltham, if he should ever become chargeable again. The fact of his becoming- chargeable to, and being relieved by, Waltham, was such an interruption of the residence contemplated by the statute as prevented his thus acquiring a settlement "n East Sudbury.

Defendants defaulted.

[See Inhabitants of West Newbury vs. Inhabitants of Bradford, 3 Metc R. 428.— Ed.]  