
    *Pike Township v. Union Township.
    Where a new county line divides a township, though the residence of a pauper fall within the new county, the old township remains chargeable with his support.
    Decided by Judges Collet and Wright, in Madison, 1831.
    This was an action of debt under the statute, to recover compensation for necessaries furnished a pauper. The father of the pauper had a settlement in Pike township, in Madison county, .and died, leaving the son a minor, who afterward became a charge upon the township. The county of Union was afterward established in 1819. The southern line of the county divided Pike township and threw part of its territory into Union county. A dispute arose about this line, Which lasted several years. Various lines were run at different times as the true line. By some of these lines, the house at which the pauper was boarded, fell into one county, and by others into the other. The line was finally settled in 1828, and the house at which the pauper was boarded fell into Union county. The township of Union, in the latter county, adjoined the territory cut off from Pike. Under the impression that Unioju township was liable for the support of the pauper, this suit was brought to recover the expense of keeping him since Union county was established. There was no evidence that the part of Pike township which fell into Union county was ever attached to the adjoining township of Union, or formed.into-a new township, though it appeared that the trustees of Union township had exercised jurisdiction over it.
    Douglass and Kerr, for plaintiff,
    cited 22 Ohio L. 412; 3 Ohio, 101.
    O. Parish and G-. Swan, for defendant,
    cited 1 Root, 423; 4 Day, 189; 4 Mass. 278, 452.
   Juctge Wright

delivered the opinion of the court:

By the law of this state, 22 Ohio L. 412, power is given to the board of commissioners in each county, to form political townships of not less than twenty-two square miles (except including an incorporated town), and to alter the boundaries. ^of townships when necessary; and such townships become thenceforth bodies corporate. No provision is found in the general law,, nor in the act establishing Union county, providing for the division of townships cut in two by the lines of a new county, or directing the disposition of the territory thus severed, or of the property of such townships, or of the paupers and other charges upon them. Until the general assembly do make other provision, we must decide questions arising out of such difficulties upon common principles.

Where a township is divided by competent authority, and a. portion of the territory formed into a .new township, unless provision is made in the act of separation for a division of the property and paupers, both remain with the old township, or that part which retains the name or corporate franchises. The law is so laid down in Massachusetts and Connecticut upon good reason. 4 Mass. 278, 452; 4 Day, 189. The local residence of the pauper at the time of separation makes no difference. He belongs to the township, and has no locality peculiar to himself within it. In the case on trial, the pauper never had a settlement in Union township, and Pike can have no right of action against it. The pauper had a settlement in Pike at the time a part of its territory was-cut off into Union county. But as he was not attached to the territory, he was not transferred with it. He remained a charge on Pike.- But if this wore less clear, still Pike could not recover against Union without evidence to show that the territory cut off ■from. Pike has been attached to Union township. That it is included. in Union county is not sufficient to incorporate the territory embraced into any township.

By the law (22 Ohio L. 230, 231) paupers in townships where they have not gained a legal settlement, who need assistance, may be supplied by such township. at the expense of the township where the pauper was last legally settled, and recovery had of the -amount of such assistance and the expense of removal of the township where the pauper was last legally settled. The case on trial is not within this provision. This pauper was not within or supplied by a township where he had not been legally settled, bub where he had been settled. We are not able to find any provision of the ^statute or principle of law that will sustain th'e plaintiff’s case.

Yerdict and judgment for defendant.  