
    The Inhabitants of Dalton versus The Inhabitants of Bernardston.
    A marriage of a man having a legal settlement within the commonwealth, gives such settlement to the wife, whether the marriage was solemnized within, or without, the commonwealth.
    A wife does not lose her settlement, derived from her husband, by means of a divorce, except for a cause which shows the marriage to have been void.
    This action, which was assumpsit for the support of one Polly Severance, a pauper, was submitted to the decision of the Court, upon the following facts agreed by the parties,, viz.: That Polly Severance, formerly Polly Hall, is now a pauper, and an expense to the plaintiffs; that she was born, and had a legal settlement, in Bernardston; that, on the 4th day of March, 1800, she intermarried with one Erastus Severance, at Guilford, in the state of Vermont, the said Erastus having been born, and having at that time his legal settlement, in Greenfield, in the then county of Hampshire, in this commonwealth; that, at tile time of said marriage, he was of the age of twenty years and eight months, and resided at said Guilford; that, during their coverture, they never resided together within this commonwealth; and that, at a Supreme Judicial Court, holden at Bennington, in and for the county of Bennington, in the state of Vermont, at their February term, 1809, the said Erastus obtained a divorce from the bonds of matrimony with the said Polly, for the cause of adultery by her committed; that the defendants were duly notified by the overseers of the poor of said Dalton, of the situation of the said Polly, on the 11th day of January, 1812; that she was an expense to and a charge upon the plaintiffs, and * the overseers of the poor of Bernardston were requested to remove her, and to pay the expense of her maintenance ; which notice was answered by the said overseers of Bernardston within less than two months, and a removal of the pauper objected to.
    If, upon the foregoing facts, the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiffs have maintained their action, the defendants agreed to be defaulted, and that judgment should be rendered against them for a liquidated sum as damages, and for costs; otherwise, the plaintiffs agreed to become nonsuit, and that the defendants should have judgment for their costs.
    
      Dewey and Waldo for the plaintiffs.
    
      Williams for the defendants.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Sedgwick, J.

The pauper, for whose support this action is brought, once had a legal settlement in the town of Bernardston; and such settlement continues, unless “ lost or defeated ” by gaining a new one. But if another settlement has been gained, then her former settlement is “ lost and defeated.”

The case states that, being so settled, on the 4th of March, 1800, she intermarried with Erastus Severance, of Guilford, in the state of Vermont. By the statute of 1793, c. 34, it is enacted, that “a married woman shall always follow and have the settlement of her husband, if he have any within the commonwealth; otherwise, her own at the time of marriage, if she had any, shall not be lost or suspended by the marriage.”

To ascertain, then, whether this pauper lost her settlement in Bernardston, it is only necessary to know whether her husband, at the time of the marriage, had a settlement m any other town in this commonwealth; and the case states expressly that, although the husband, at that time, resided in the state of Vermont, yet he then had a legal settlement in Greenfield, in this commonwealth. The consequence is irresistible: her settlement must follow that of her husband.

* It can make no difference where the marriage was solemnized, whether within or without the commonwealth, provided it be such a marriage as our laws will recognize; nor what was the age of the parties, provided they were competent to contract matrimony.

It only remains to be inquired, whether, by the divorce, for the cause of adultery, the settlement acquired by the marriage was lost. Now, the statute has specified the various “ ways and means,” by which a settlement may be acquired; and has declared that so it may be obtained, “ and not otherwise; ” and a divorce is not enumerated among these “ ways and means.” It cannot, therefore, affect a settlement acquired by the marriage.

Had the divorce been for a cause which would have shown the marriage to have been void, it would have been otherwise; there would have been no such marriage as the statute intended as a mean of acquiring a settlement,

On the whole, we are all clearly of opinion that the plaintiffs cannot prevail.

Plaintiffs nonsuit. 
      
      
         [Inhab. Middleborough vs. Rochester, 12 Mass. Rep. 368. — Inhab. Medway vs Inhab. Needham, 16 Mass. Rep. 157. — Inhab. Cambridge vs. Inhab. Lexington, Pick. 506. — Ed.]
     