
    Inhabitants of Shelburne vs. Inhabitants of Buckland.
    Franklin.
    Sept. 18, 1877.
    March 1, 1878.
    Endicott & Lord, JJ., absent.
    A notice to the overseers of the town of B., signed in behalf of the overseers of the town of S., that “ the family of A., whose legal settlement is in your town, but now residing in this town, being in needy circumstances, has applied to this hoard for relief which we have granted, and charged to your town, and shall continue so to do until you remove or otherwise provide for their support,” is sufficient under the Gen. Sts. c. 70, § 17; and the town of B., by its omission to return a written answer thereto within two months after receiving the notice, is barred, under § 18, from contesting the question of settlement, in an action against it for the expenses of the support. ,
    Contract for supplies furnished to Lilia Hailey, John Hailey and Estella Hailey, in the years 1874,1875 and 1876. The case was submitted to the Superior Court on a statement of facts, of which all that need be stated was as follows :
    On March 81, 1876, the plaintiff gave the defendant the following notice: “ Shelburne Falls, Mass., March 31, 1876. To the overseers of the poor of the town of Buckland. Gentlemen : The family of John M. Hailey, whose legal settlement is in your town, but now residing in this town, being in needy circumstances, has applied to this board for relief, which we have granted, and charged to your town, and shall continue so to do until you remove or otherwise provide for their support. The family consists of Lilla, John and Estella Hailey. For and in behalf of the overseers of the poor of the town of Shelburne. R. S. Streeter, one of said overseers.” The plaintiff had previously given to Hatfield a similar notice. The defendant verbally denied the settlement of the wife and children in its town, but never made such denial in writing.
    The Superior Court ordered judgment for the plaintiff; and the defendant appealed to this court.
    
      A. W. Preston, for the plaintiff.
    
      8. T. Field, for the defendant.
   Colt, J.

The overseers of Shelburne gave a written notice, which was sufficient under the Gen. Sts. o. 70, § 17, to require from the overseers of the defendant town a written answer, within two months after its receipt. No written answer was returned, and by the terms of the statute the defendant, by this omission, is barred from contesting the question of settlement in this action. Gen. Sts. o. 70, § 18. New Bedford v. Hingham, 117 Mass. 445. The notice in the case at bar follows the form of the notice in Lynn v. Newburyport, 5 Allen, 545, which was there held sufficient. Judgment affirmed.  