McLaughlin's Lessee v. Dawson

McLaughlin’s Lessee v. Dawson. Settlement. To constitute a legal settlement, there must be a personal residence, unless such danger exists, as would affect a man of reasonable firmness. Ejectment, for 400 acres of land, lying north-west of the river Ohio. Both parties claimed under settlement-rights. The defendant’s improvement commenced one day earlier than the plaintiff’s ; hut the plaintiff had the first warrant; and ho had been constantly resident on the land, except when he left it, through imminent danger from the Indians. The defendant’s improvements were greater than those of the plaintiff (for he was a richer man), but he was often absent from the premises, sometimes as a volunteer in the public service, and sometimes living at a distance with his father or brothers. Woods, for the plaintiff. Ross, for the defendant. ) Tried at Pittsburgh nisi prius, October 1800, before Yeates and Smith, Justices, s. c. 3 Yeates 61, 2 Sm. Laws 209, where the case is better reported. [MAJORITY — The Court,] The Court, in the charge to the jury, strongly preferred the claim of the plaintiff, on account of his constant residence on the premises ; except when obliged to retire, from a reasonable apprehension of danger. They mentioned the case of Ewalt's Lessee v. Highlands (ante, p. 162), and said, that the matures! reflection satisfied them of the propriety and correctness of the principle there laid down: to wit, that to constitute a legal settlement, it must be accompanied with personal residence, unless *such danger exists, as would operate on the mind of a man of reasonable *- firmness. Verdict, accordingly, for the plaintiff. See Ewalt’s Lessee v. Highlands, ante, p. 162; Commonwealth v. Coxe, ante, p. 170; Morris’s Lessee v. Neighman, ante, p. 209, and the notes to these cases; Attorney General v. The Grantees, &c., post, p. 237.