
    The Inhabitants of Charlestown versus The Inhabitants of Boston.
    The widow mother of a female pauper became possessed of an estate sufficient, to confer a settlement from three years’ possession; but, before the three yeara had passed, the daughter was married to an alien; and, although she continued to reside in her mother’s family until after the expiration of the three years, it was holden that she derived no settlement from her mother.
    Assumpsit for the support of a pauper, alleged by the plaintiffs to have her legal settlement in Boston. The action was submitted to the determination of the Court, upon the following facts agreed by the parties.
    
      Eliza Jackson, the pauper for whose support this action is brought, was daughter of Michael and Catherine Leonard, and was born in Nova Scotia, on the 23d of February, 1782. The said Michael was born in England, and never had a settlement in this Commonwealth ; and the said Eliza has none, unless she acquired one in Boston derivatively from her mother (if she ever had one), who was daughter of John and Eleanor Barry, and came to Boston, with her said parents, in the autumn of 1766.
    The said John was born in Ireland, and the said Eleanor in Germany; and they were married in Louisburg, from whence they came to Boston. On the 8th of January, 1767, the said John Barry purchased a dwellingbouse in Boston, which he conveyed, on the 19th of November, 1772, in fee simple, to Elizabeth Archard, who, on the 15th of April, 1774, conveyed the same, in fee simple, to the said Eleanor Barry, “ and her children,” without naming, or otherwise describing them, she then having four children, besides the said Catherine. The said John and Eleanor were, with their children, warned out of Boston on the 27th of January, 1767.
    The said Eleanor Barry, having survived her husband, died at Boston on the 16th of September, 1798, leaving the *said Catherine Leonard, who had also survived her husband, and one other daughter, her heirs at law. The said heirs immediately took possession of the house, and received the rent, being $ 133.33 per annum, in equal shares, until the 11th of July, 1803, when the said Catherine purchased her sister’s moiety.
    The said Catherine was born in Nova Scotia on the 24th of October, 1759, was married, in Boston, to the said Michael Leonard, in January, 1776, and in March of the same year left Boston, with her said husband, and went to Nova Scotia, and continued to reside there until August, 1783, when they returned to Boston; and there the said Catherine constantly lived, and had her home, until 1813. Neither the said Michael, nor the said Catherine, was ever naturalized. In 1804 she married a second husband, one Davis, who had no settlement in this Commonwealth.
    The said Eliza Jackson came, with her said parents, to Boston, in 1783, and, in August, 1800, being eighteen years of age, married to William Jackson, a mariner, who never had a settlement in this Commonwealth. But she still continued to live with her mother after her marriage as before, and her husband, who was at sea the greater part of the time, also boarded with the mother when on shore, until 1808, when he died abroad. The said Eliza never lived with her husband out of the house of her mother. They had no household furniture, except one bed ; and they never furnished any apartment of the house for their separate use, or lived by themselves as a separate family ; but always took their meals at the table of their mother, who had several other persons in her family, besides the pauper and her husband.
    Due notice was given to the defendants within three months.
    If, upon these facts, the Court should be of opinion, that the said pauper had gained a settlement in Boston, the defendants agreed to be defaulted; otherwise, the plaintiffs agreed to become non-suit.
   *The cause was argued by Thatcher, for the plaintiffs, and Stearns, for the defendants ; and the opinion of the Court was delivered by

Parker, C. J.

The question arising out of the facts agreed in this case is, whether Eliza Jackson, the pauper, has acquired a settlement in Boston derivatively from any of her ancestors. If she has not, she is a State pauper, and the plaintiffs must seek their relief from the government.

Her grandfather, John Barry, acquired no settlement ; he and bis family having been warned out in 1767, before they had had a year’s residence in the town ; and it does not appear that he was living during the operation of the statute of 1789, c. 14, so as to have gained a settlement under that statute.

The grandmother, Eleanor, although possessed of a freehold estate, in her own right, of the requisite value, and although living until 1798, gained no settlement, because she was an alien, never had been naturalized, and, not being born within the British dominions, did not become a citizen by virtue of the treaty of peace in 1783.

Catherine, the mother of the pauper, having been born within the .common allegiance prior to the Revolution, namely, in Nova Scotia, and being within the United States when the treaty of peace was ratified, became a citizen by force of that treaty. But she did not, of course, acquire a settlement in any particular town. If she gained any settlement in .Boston, it was in virtue of the real estate which her mother, Eleanor, had occupied and enjoyed until September, 1798. But, by the statute of 1793, c. 34, three years’ successive occupation of a freehold estate, or estate of inheritance, in the town where the oarty dwells, is necessary to give a settlement. Catherine, therefore, did not gain a settlement until September, 1801.

The pauper was married to an alien in 1800, being eighteen years of age at the time of her marriage. She was, therefore, out of the control of her mother, before the * settlement

of the mother was gained, and could derive no settlement from her. This is analogous to the doctrine of emancipation in the English books, and according to the principles settled by this Court in the case of Springfield vs. Wilbraham. Her continuing to reside in the house of her mother does not affect the case ; for this must have been voluntary on her part, and with the consent of the husband ; and the mother no longer retained any control over the person, or any right to the services, of the daughter. The cases in the English books on this point are not applicable here. Our settlement cases must be decided according to the intent of our legislature as expressed in our statutes. Our statute does not provide that the family shall have the settlement of its head, but that the children shall have the settlement of the parents. They are no longer children, so as to take a new settlement acquired by their parents, when capable of gaining one for themselves, if they are separated from their parents by marriage or other legal emancipation.

Plaintiffs nonsuit 
      
       4 Mass. Rep. 493.
     