
    LYDIA BUCK v. TOWN OF WORCESTER.
    
      Pauper. Contract.
    
    Defendant’s overseer of the poor promised to pay plaintiff for keeping her daughter, a pauper, until he removed her from plaintiff’s house. The overseer subsequently went to plaintiff’s house to remove her, and demanded her of plaintiff, who told him to do as he pleased about taking her; but the overseer went away without taking her, and told plaintiff he should never come for her again, and plaintiff continued to keep her. Held, that the promise originally made continued in force after such attempted removal.
    Book Account to recover for the support of the plaintiff’s daughter Arabella, a pauper.
    .The plaintiff had supported her daughter previous to 1874, and all the items of her account, except the last, were for such support. The last item was for supporting said daughter from March 4, 1874, to January 5, 1875. The auditors allowed this item, and found that the defendant’s overseer of the poor, soon after his election in 1874, went to see the plaintiff, and tried to hire her to support her daughter for a year; that they .were unable to agree upon a price, and the overseer left, saying he should • remove the pauper, but would pay for keeping her until he did remove her; that in June, 1874, the overseer went to plaintiff’s’house for the purpose of removing the pauper, and demanded the pauper of the plaintiff, and that plaintiff told him to do as he pleased about taking her; that the overseer called for the pauper’s clothes, and the plaintiff told him she had on all she had, whereupon the overseer left, saying he should never come after the pauper again, and the plaintiff continued to keep her.
    At the March Term, 1875, Redfield, J., presiding, the defendant objected to the allowance of anything for keeping the pauper after the overseer went to remove her in June, 1874, as aforesaid; but the court overruled the objection, and rendered judgment on the report for the plaintiff for the full amount found by the auditors; to which the defendant objected.
    
      J. 0. Livingston and J. A. Wing, for the defendants,
    cited Jamaica v. Gfuilford, 2 D. Chip. 103 ; Londonderry v. Windham, 2 Yt. 288 ; Fssex v. Milton, 3 Yt. 17; Aldrich v. Londonderry, 5 Vt. 441; Oastleton v. Miner et al. 8 Yt. 209 ; Ives v. Walling-ford., 8 Yt. 224; Houghton v. Danville, 10 Vt. 537; Churchill v. West Fairlee, 17 Yt. 447 ; Thetford v. Hubbard, 22 Vt. 440 ; Buck v. Worcester, 46 Yt. 2.
    
      L. L. Durant and H W. Heaton, for the plaintiff,
    cited Wol-cott v. Wolcott, 19 Vt. 37; Worcester v. Ballard, 38 Yt. 60.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Ross, J.

It is well settled that a town can be held liable to third persons for the support of its paupers, only by contract. It is conceded that from March to June, 1874, the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for supporting her daughter Arabella, by reason of a contract entered into between the plaintiff and the overseer of the poor of the town. It is contended that the overseer of the poor terminated that contract in June, 1874. In March, the overseer of the poor being unable to agree with the plaintiff on the price to be paid her for the support of the daughter, told the plaintiff that he should remove her from the plaintiff’s house, but would pay the plaintiff for keeping her until he should take her away. He went to the plaintiff’s house in June, intending to take the daughter away with him. The plaintiff made no objection, and did nothing that prevented the overseer from removing the daughter from the plaintiff’s house. They had some words about the daughter’s clothing, whereupon the overseer left, telling the plaintiff he never should come after Arabella again. He did not notify the plaintiff that he would no longer pay for the daughter’s support. He had before agreed to pay for such support until he should remove the daughter from the plaintiff’s house. When he left the plaintiff’s house in June, he, in substance, informed her that he should not remove the daughter at all. This left his promise made in March, to pay for such support until he did remove the daughter, in force, and binding upon him and the defendant town. ' These facts, found by the auditors, render the town liable to the plaintiff for the support of the pauper, Arabella, from March, 1874, to January, 1875, by reason of an express contract made with her by the overseer of the poor.

Judgment affirmed.  