
    *David Taylor vs. James B. Green and David Johnston, Overseers of the Poor in the township of Trenton.
    An action cannot bo maintained by the Overseer? of the Poor in their own name against a third person to recover moneys belonging to the township, or expended by them as its a-gents, for the benefit of sncli third .person ; such action should be brought in the corporate name of the township.
    The defendants in certiorari, Green and Johnston, as overseers of the poor of the township of Trenton, in the county of Hunterdon, and in that name brought an action of debt against Taylor, the plaintiff, before a justice of the peace, to recover from him a sum of money expended by them as such overseers, “ for boarding, lodging, washing and attenclanco of M. A. B., an apprentice of the said David Taylor, at the poor house of the township of Trenton, from the first of December, 1829, to the 15th of February, A. A. 1830, both days inclusive, at four dollars per week, amounting to forty-four dollars. A judgment was rendered by the justice in favor of the plaintiffs below, Green and Johnston; Taylor thereupon brought this certiorari; and Ewing, for the plaintiff, among other reasons for reversal, relied upon the following :
    That the action, if any could be sustained against the defendant below, should have been brought by the township of Trenton, in its corporate capacity and in its corporate name, and not in the name of the overseers of the poor, and in support of this position, he cited Shotwell v. Thornall, 1 Penn. Pep. 136.
    
      Hamilton, contra.
   Ford, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court.

There can be no doubt that this was the money of the township, which the overseers expended, and that the overseers acted but as the agents of the township; the action, therefore should have been brought in the name of the principal. The case of Shotwell v. Thornall, 1 Penn. Pep. 136, is exactly in point, and must govern this.

Let the judgment be reversed.  