
    The Inhabitants of Sudbury versus The Inhabitants of Stow.
    One residing in a town more than ten years, paying taxes for more than five of them for a small piece of land, which the owner of it permitted him to occupy at a small rent for one year, and which he continued to occupy for the other years without any express contract, and was too poor to pay the rent, — was holden to have acq tired a settlement in the town, f
    t See The Inhabitants of Templeton vs. The Inhabitants of Sterling, 15 Mass. Rep. 253
    Assumpsit foi the support of one Jonathan Robinson and his family, paupers alleged by the plaintiffs to have had their legal settlement in, and to be chargeable to, the *town of Stow. The action was submitted to the determination of the Court, upon the following facts.
    The said Robinson had his lawful settlement in Stow until the year 1794, from which time to the commencement of this suit he resided in Sudbury. He was taxed in Sudbury, from 1794 to 1800 inclusive, for a small piece of land, which the owner had originally consented that he should occupy for one year at a small rent, and which he continued to occupy during all those years without any express contract, but was too poor to pay the rent in full. He was also taxed for his poll for the first three of those years ; but the assessors of Sudbury omitted to tax him for his poll after 1796, wholly on account of his poverty and inability to pay. All the taxes ever assessed on him in Sudbury had been paid by him or by others.
    If, upon these facts, the Court should be of opinion, that the pauper had acquired a legal settlement in Sudbury, the plaintiffs were to become nonsuit; otherwise, the defendants were to be defaulted.
    
      Bigelow, for the plaintiffs,
    contended, that, to acquire a settlement in the twelfth mode pointed out by the statute, the person must reside in the town ten years, and pay all taxes assessed on his poll or estate for five years. The pauper in this case was taxed for his poll but three years. For the rest of the term, he paid a tax for an estate which was not his, and to which he had no title. The statute must intend that the party shall have sufficient property of his own to be taxed.
    Hoar, for the defendants.
   Parker, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. The pauper had resided more than ten years in Sudbury, before he became chargeable as a pauper ; and from 1794 to 1800 inclusive, he was taxed' there, three years for his poll, and the whole time for a lot of land of which he had the occupation, having originally entered upon it by contract for one year.

* These facts bring him within the twelfth mode of acquiring a settlement under our statute ; provided the estate, for which he was taxed, may, in contemplation of law, be considered his estate. And we have no doubt that such must be the construction of the statute. The estate was bis, either as tenant from year to year, which would make him tenant for years, or as tenant by sufferance, bolding over after his term. The payment of taxes within the town is the principal cause of his settlement ; and the term his estate does not import that he must have a fee, or even a freehold, but any legal interest for which he is taxed, excluding such estate as he may hold in trust, either as guardian, administrator, or otherwise. in wh.ch he has no property. The estate for which the pauper in this case paid taxes was his estate ; so that he became legally settled in Sudbury.

Plaintiffs nonsuit.  