Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Overseers of the Poor of Fort Ann v. Overseers of the Poor of Kingsbury 14 Johns. 365

← Cases

Overseers of the Poor of Fort Ann v. Overseers of the Poor of Kingsbury

14 Johns. 365 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Contents

Majority

p. 367
The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Fort Ann, against the Overseers of the Poor of Kingsbury.
NEW-YORK
October, 1817.

Headnote

Living on ana working a farm» of tbe yearly value of 100 dollars, on snares, for above two years, is a renting and paying rent, within the meaning of the act for the relief and settlement of the poor. (1 IV. It. L. 279.) and the party, hy such renting, gains a legal seflement in the town. Ifthe justices and overseers of tbe poor of a town, seize the property of a person under the 22d section of the act, on the ground of his having run away, leaving his wife or chil* dren a charge to tbe town, it is ™s Üeinglégaiíy tom?11™” they hy%hep”ocee?£ ing his removal, another town.
TWO justices of peace, of Kingsbury, made an order for the removal of Richard Sweet, a pauper, from that town to Fort Ann, as the place of his legal settlement. There was an appeal from this order to the general sessions of the peace of Washing ton county, which was tried in May, 1816, and the order of the justices confirmed.
At the trial, before the sessions, the appellants produced an order of two justices of Kingsbury, dated the 13th of May, 1815, reciting, that on the complaint of the overseers of the poor, and due proof, that Robert Sweet, late of the town of Kingsbury, yeoman, had run away, leaving his wife, who has since died, and his infant children, a charge to the said town, and that Sweet had some estate, real or personal, whereby the town might be eased of the charge, in whole or in part; they, therefore, authorizing the overseers to take and seize the goods and chattels of the said Sweet, and to let out his lands and tenements, within the county, and to receive the annual rents and profits, towards the maintaining, bringing up, and providing for his children so left. The appellants also produced an inventory of the property of Sweet, seized by virtue of the order, and certified by the overseers of Kingsbury, amounting to 182 dollars and 82 cents, This order was confirmed by the general sessions of the peace, the 30th of May, 1815 ; and the overseers were directed to sell the property seized, and to appropriate the moneys arising from the sale to the support of the children of Sweet, &c.
It appeared that Sweet, previous to 1800, lived and worked on a farm in Fort Ann, in common with one Hotchkiss, for about three years, the farm being worth about 100 dollars a year; and that they held the farm, on shares, rendering half the produce to Mead, the owner. After Sweet left Fort Ann, he lived in a small house and garden on the farm of Chester Cook, in Kingsbury, for about five years, and paid five dollars a year rent; and the last two years he worked on the farm for hire, and was to have for his services, during the summer season, one fourth of the grain raised, worth above 50 dollars a year. During'
p. 368
the rest of the season he was paid daily wages, and had no pr¡v¡¡ege or right on the farm, nor any share of the produce, except the one fourth of the grain.
It appeared, also, that while Sweet lived on the farm at Fort *1 ' 9 x jnTl) he paid his proportion of the taxes on the farm, for two years.
Z. R. Shepherd, for the plaintiffs,
contended, that the tpwn of Kingsbury was concluded by the acts of its officers, in seizing and selling the property of Szueet, for the maintenance of his wife and children. The proceedings were on the ground that Sweet had a legal settlement there. They could have no right to seize the property of a person who had absconded, and had no legal settlement in the town. The word “ charged” in the act, (sess. 36. ch. 78. s. 22, 1 N. R. L. 286.) means legally chargeable. The whole provisions of the act proceed on the fact of the wife or children being paupers of the town, or a town charge. The order of the 15th of May, 1815, was, substantially, an adjudication that the place of Sweet’s legal settlement was in Kingsbury. If the town of Fort Ann was to be charged with the maintenance of Sweet, or his family, the plaintiffs were entitled to his property.
Again; the pauper rented a tenement in Kingsbury, and paid rent there.
Weston, contra,
insisted, that working on the farm of Mead, on shares, was a renting and paying rent, within the meaning of the act. (Sess. 36. ch. 78. s. 2. N. R. L. 279.) The agreement created a tenancy. In Jackson, ex dem. Colden, v. Brownell,[1] . it was decided, that cultivating a farm for'a year, on shares, made the person a tenant. Having, then, rented and ocupied a farm at Fort Ann, the yearly value of which was above 30 dollars, the pauper must he considered as having acquired a legal settlement in that town. He had, besides, paid his share of the public taxes on the farm, for two years.

The question is, whether Richard Sweet, a pauper, had his last legal settlement in the town of Fort Ann ? The test given by the statute, consists in bona fide renting and occupying a tenement, of the yearly value of 30 dollars, for two years, and actually paying such rent; or in holdings and ex

p. 369
ecuting an office for one year; or in having been charged with, and paid public taxes of the town for two years ; or in having been bound an apprentice or servant, and serving two years in such town accordingly. (1 N. R. L. 279.)

It appears that Szoeet, before the year i 800, lived on9 and occupied a farm, in Fort Ann, worth 100 dollars per year, in com a on with Hotchkiss, for more than two years, rendering half the produce to ¿¡lead, the proprietor of the farm. This, we are inclined to think, was a bona fide renting, and payment of rent„ according to the statute. Hotchkiss and Sweet had the entire control, and ostensible possession of the farm, to sow and plant according to their own discretion, under an agreement for three years. The one half of the produce, which they had a right to retain, is not to be regarded as a mere rule of compensation for their labour; but, the one half which they were to yield to the proprietor of the land, ought to be considered as rent for the use of the farm. (Jackson, ex dem. Colden, v. Brownell, 1 Johns. Rep. 267 .) Besides, the case shows, (and it was admitted on the argument,) that Sweet had, during two years, been assessed, and actually paid taxes in Fort Ann. So that on two distinct grounds, the pauper gained a settlement in Fort Ann.

But it is contended, that subsequent to such settlement, the pauper rented a tenement, and paid rent in the town of Kings-bury. On examining the evidence, however, it appears, that for the house and garden, in Kingsbury, he paid only 5 dollars per year; and, independently of that tenement, he can only be regarded as a common labourer, on the farm of Chester Cook. There is no evidence of his paying taxes in Kingsbury.

It appears, however, that in the year 18 í 5, under the 22d section of the “ act for the relief and settlement of the poor,” (1 R. L. 286.) the property of the pauper was seized and appropriated for the support of his family, who were then chargeable to the town of Kingsbury. We are of opinion, that by this sequestration of the property of the pauper, the overseers of Kingsbury adopted him as one of their poor; and they are concluded by that proceeding. The order of the general sessions of the county of Washington must, therefore, be reversed.

Judgment reversed.