
    The Inhabitants of Ashby versus The Inhabitants of Lunenburg.
    In an action by one town against another to recover expenses incurred in the support of a pauper, a notice signed by A and B as selectmen, they being overseers of the poor, by virtue of their office of selectmen, was held sufficient.
    Assumpsit to recover expenses incurred in the support of Abel Stearns and his family, who were paupers. Plea, non assumpsit.
    
    At the trial in the Court of Common Pleas, before Strong J., the plaintiffs, in order to prove that it had been duly notified to the defendants that the paupers had become chargeable to .the town of Ashby, produced a notice signed by two of the selectmen of Ashby as selectmen, with evidence that it had been duly sent to the overseers of Lunenburg. No answer was returned. This notification was objected to by the de fendants ; and the court ruled that it was insufficient and ordered a nonsuit; whereupon the plaintiff’s filed their exceptions.
    It was admitted at the argument, that no overseers had been chosen by the town of Ashby at the time when the notice was given.
    
      Hoar, for the defendants,
    cited Dalton v. Hinsdale, 6 Mass. R. 501.
    
      Jan. 20th. 1830,
    
      Stearns and John Locke, for the plaintiffs,
    cited Powers v. Ware, 2 Pick. 451; Garland v. Brewer, 3 Greenl. 197.
    
      April term 1830,
   Parker C. J.

afterward drew up the opinion of the Court. The only question is on the sufficiency of the notice ; and the objection is, that it does not appear to have been given by the overseers of Ashby. It is in all respects sufficiently particular ; but it is signed by the selectmen as such, not stating the capacity of overseers, in which they acted. By statute, they, as selectmen, there being no other persons chosen for the office, were overseers, virtute officii. So that the objection is not to their want of authority, but to their not having denominated themselves overseers, in their letter of notice.

As it is by a general law, that the duty of overseers is devolved upon the selectmen, when no persons are specially designated to that office, the overseers of Lunenburg cannot pretend ignorance of it; and we think, that having received notice of a matter relating to the poor, signed by persons calling themselves selectmen, they ought to have presumed they were acting in the capacity of overseers.

The case of Dalton v. Hinsdale refers only to cases where there are overseers ; and only requires that the notice should come from them, or an agent appointed by them.

The case of Powers v. Ware, is very strong in support of the ground taken by the plaintiffs, that selectmen having authority as overseers, may be bound in the latter capacity, without naming themselves as such.

The case of Garland v. Brewer is directly in point.

Judgment of C. C. P. reversed. 
      
       See Rowe v. Beale, 15 Pick. 125; Dover v. Deer Island, 15 Maine R. (3 Sbepley,) 169.
     