
    
      The Overseers of the Poor of the town of Scaghticoke against the Overseers of the Poor of the town of Brunswick.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1817.
    In order to acquire a settlement by pur-* chase, a contract for a conveyance on the payment of the consideration money is not sufficient but a title must have been acquired ¿ and it must appear that a consi iteration to the amount of seventy five dollars was actually paid. Whether an adjudication in an order of removal that a pauper’s legal settlement ftae in the town to which he is removed, bo suf* ficient; or should it be ad* judged that it was his last legal settlement £
    IN ERROR on certiorari, to the court of general sessions of the peace, for the county of Montgomery.
    
    
      Angle Preston, a pauper, was removed from the town of Brunswick to the town of Scaghticoke, by an order of two justices, dated the 1st day of September, 1815; in which it was adjudged, that the legal settlement of her, the said Angle Preston, was in the town of Scaghticoke. The overseers of the poor of the town of Scaghticoke appealed from this order to the court of sessions of the county of Montgomery, who affirmed the order.
    The return stated, that a-witness testified that the father of the pauper once lived in the town of Scaghticoke, where he owned a farm, and that the pauper lived with him, and was there married; and that he supposed her father paid 500 pounds for his farm; but, on his cross examination, he said that he did not know that the pauper’s father ever paid any thing for the (arm.
    
      
      Levinus Lansing testified, that bis father sold to the pauper’s father the farm on which he lived for 600 pounds, in the year 1785, and gave him a bond for a deed, to be given on the payment of the purchase money; and that on the 11th day of December, 1792. the pauper’s father sold it to the witness, for 565 pounds, but had no deed for it, and he assigned the bond to the witness; and the witness did not know that he had ever paid any thing for the farm. No other evidence was stated in the return material to the point decided by the court.
    The return was submitted to the court without argument.
   Per Curiam.

The two questions in this case are, 1. Whether the order of removal is not defective, in not adjudging that Scaghticoke was the last place of legal settlement of the pauper. 2. Whether the facts in the case show that- Scaghticoke was in reality the last place of legal settlement.

The ground on which this second point is attempted to be-supported, is the purchase of an estate in that town by the pauper’s father. The mere contract for the purchase of land will not satisfy this mode of acquiring a settlement. And although the act makes use of the term purchase, this necessarily implies that a title must be given. But, at all events, the consideration, to the amount of 75 dollars, must be paid ; and there is no evidence whatever that the father of the pauper ever paid any part of the consideration of his purchase. One witness says he supposed he paid 5007., but the witness did not pretend to know any thing about it; and the circumstances are very strong to show that he did not pay it. On the purchase he only got a bond for a deed, and it is proved that he never got a deed; by this bond the deed was to be given on the payment of the purchase money. It would, therefore, seem very reasonable to conclude that he would have had his deed if he had paid the consideration. He, afterwards, sold this bond to Levinus Lansing, The order of the sessions must, therefore, be reversed.

Order of sessions reversed.  