Blackstone OVERNORTON v Salford oxon when the father purchase for less than  and reside thereon and still continue to reside but the child leave he they be  not settle in that place post SC burr Sett can Peter white the young and mary  his wife be remove by ardour of two justice from Salford to OverNorton as  likely to become Chargeable W to the former and as be last legal settle in the  latter on appeal the session discharge this order and state special that Peter  white the pauper father be settle in OverNorton in for the consideration of  purchase a tenement in Salford of one Lardner who wife be seize thereof in fee  but who never join in any conveyance thereof nor concern herself about the  tenement though she survive her husband who die in ten year that Peter white  have live in the say tenement uninterrupted ever since the say purchase and  still life therein that in the pauper be bear there and live with his father  therein till about when be marry and leave his father family and live in a  separate tenement at Salford without have gain any settlement but what he  derive from his father in easter term last Norton solicitorgeneral move to  quash the order of session and confirm that of the jusfices because under the  statute Geo ten the father gain as be assert no settlement by this purchase  the consideration money be under and therefore can communicate none to his  child and now Morton Blackstone and carter show for cause that whether  permanent settle or not it be sufficient to support the present order if the  pauper be not now removable in athro p ruding and while ruding m Geo that the  wife be hold not to be removable from a and yet her settlement continue in b  that the son settlement be hitherto mere derivative must depend on his father  if the father present settlement be at Salford the son present settlement be  there also that the father settlement by the purchase in and forty day  residence be in Salford when the pauper be born bas continue so ever since  Blackstone and remain to this hour in Salford indeed under statute Geo this  settlement will determine if ever be remove from his purchase but till then  Salford be his only settlement for no man can have two at once before the  statute residence for forty day in the parish after any purchase gain a  settlement which after fifty year absence may be resort to if no new  settlement be acquire so the law continue in purchase of and upward but in  purchase under when the purchaser quit the occupation the statute destroy the  settlement it do not prevent the gain a settlement by such a purchase but make  it a defeasible settlement by subjoin to it a condition subsequent that of  perpetual residence he gain the settlement by the old law before the  statute the statute only limit its duration he shall gain it for no long time  than be shall inhabit thereon and he then shall be liable to be remove  videlicet after the condition of perpetual reside do you be break consequent  he be not so before and be shall be remove to his last legal settlement before  the say purchase I e on the defeat the due settlement the former shall revive  but it do not subsist during the inhabitancy for then the statute will have  only say to his legal settlement this differ from the case of  certificatepersons for there the statute W z contain a Blackstone er p express  negative he shall acquire no settlement unless by two specific method here the  law permit the acquisition of the settlement and only regulate its duration if  it never be acquire it can not have endure a instant if during the father  residence at Salford his child bear there be settle at OverNorton then he give  they a settlement which he have not himself and this inconvenience will also  follow that his child after seven year old may be take from he and remove to  OverNorton as to the inconvenience that may arise if a father shall reside  till his death on a trivial purchase and thereby fix a burdensome family on  the parish or if as in the present case a child be forisfamiliate during his  father residence and thereby perhaps render incapable of change his settlement  if his father shall hereafter remove these be grievance for which if the  statute have give no remedy the court can give it the Blackstone statute have  relieve parish in one instance videlicet the absence of the purchaser after  residence on a trivial purchase it have leave other case as it find they under  such a purchase as this ten daughter may indisputable gain settlement by a  descent in coparcenary or ten son by a devise to they all in common Stautes in  bar of settlement have always be strict construe and in particular this clause  of Geo a man who mortgage the estate to raise the consideration money have be  hold a good fide purchaser a and purchase under this statute be conflned to  acquisition by sale only and extend not to those by settlement gift or devise  last as it be state that the original title be bad carter urge that this be  not to be consider as a purchase for that transaction be void but that white  be a title commence by seize and so not within the statute Geo Norton  solicitorgeneral in support of the rule insist that the only question be  whether a son emancipate and live separate from his father shall have a right  to stay in the parish where his father reside or be send to his own legal  settlement that if the son be not now removable he never can be so for accord  to the doctrine in east Woodhay and west Woodhay b if a child cease to be part  of his father family and the father afterward change his settlement the new  settlement shall not go to the son that the original settlement at OverNorton  never be discontinue or so much as suspend for that a purchase under do not  give any settlement but a mere personal privilege of residence that it will  make wile work in parish if by a purchase of S value and residence thereon a  burdensome family may be bring upon the parish that if the father himself  shall cease to reside on the very spot he may instant be remove to OverNorton  a strong the son be liable for he have cease to reside there be emancipate and  have leave his father that if the doctrine now contend for shall prevail and  the father shall remove and alter his own settlement yet the two parish will  be conclude in respect of the son by the Blackstone confirmation of this order  of reversal but if the father have no permanent settlement much less can the  son be suppose to have one who derive all he have from the father as for the  title by seize after thirtysix year quiet possession the law will not presume  a wrong but rather presume a right in the present possessor Lord Mansfield CJ  lament the unhappy policy of our present poorslaw which after thirtysix year  residence of a man in a parish which have have all the benefit of his vigour  and labour now render it a very doubtful point where he and his family be to  be settle I will will take a day time to consider it afterward the last day of  the term Norton solicitorgeneral move for the judgement of the court but be  tell they have not form their opinion so it be adjourn over till Michaelmas  term but with this proviso that the cost of mainWiling the pauper from this  day shall attend the event of the cause post S c wonder but now by g c all  person be irremovable until they become actual Chargeable except saint person  convict of felony dly rogue and vagabond dly unmarried woman with child who  shall be deem Chargeable see b Tibbenham east r v InskipwithSowerby m S r v  idle b a ten c S by which it be enact that no person shall gain a settlement  by virtue of any purchase of any estate c whereof the consideration do not  amount to the sum of good fide pay for any long time than such person shall  inhabit Blackstone er p on such estate and shall then be liable to be remove  to the place where he be last legal settle purchase be use in its popular  sense denote a purchase for money r v Marwood burr S can where the  consideration express in the conveyance be parole evidence be admit to prove  that be the real consideration r v Scammonden TR a grant of a copyhold with  one shilling fine one shilling heriot and one shilling rend be a purchase  within the statute r v warblington TR so a grant of a copyhold pay a quitrent  of S d per annum r v Hornchurch b a a clear and absolute equitable estate will  confer a settlement but a mere equitable right will not r v Toddington b a r v  Berkswell I b c SC d r r v Geddington b c d r where all the case be refer to  that burr SC and see Leeds v Blackfordby post Dunckurch v souta Kilworth post  z c h a r v Tedford burr SC r v Chailey TR but where the pauper purchase a  message for under a agreement that the vendor shall allow of the purchasemoney  to remain upon mortgage and such mortgage be accord make and only pay by the  pauper to the vendor who keep the title deed in his hand but the pauper take  possession and reside in it some year but be unable to pay the rest of the  purchase money and afterward agree to sell it to b for who thereupon pay the  to the original vendor upon his deliver up to he the title deed and the remain  to the pauper on the execution of the conveyance to he at which time the  pauper quit the message not have reside on it forty day after the payment of  the to the original vendor it be hold that the pauper do not gain a settlement  by residence on such estate r v Olney m S r v Hattingley TR send for b stram