
    The Inhabitants of Needham versus The Inhabitants of Newton.
    Of the limitation of suits for expenses incurred by towns in the support of paupers.
    [The statute gives an action to the inhabitants of a town supplying a pauper in necessity, against the town wherein he has his settlement, for such sum as shall have been expended within three months next before notice given to the town v which is liable, and for such expenses as accrue afterwards, before the commencement of the suit, which must be commenced within two years of the accruing of the cause of action. Held, that a notice more than two years before the commencement of the action, is not sufficient to enable the plaintiff to sustain an action for expenses, the cause of which action arose within two years next before the commencement thereof.]
    Assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts. The first was for supplies furnished to one Joseph Child, with his wife and children, found in Needham, and standing in need of immediate relief, from the 1st day of April, 1810, to the 24th day of March, 1812, the date of the writ, with an averment that Newton had notice within three months, namely, on the first day of June, 1810. The .second count was for money paid, &c., for the defendants at their request ; and the third count in substance like the first.
    The action was tried upon the general issue, before jfutnam, J., at the sittings here after the last October term. The only evidence offered by the plaintiffs, to prove legal notice to the defendants, was a letter from T. Jackson, one of the overseers of Newton, dated the 7th of September, 1807, acknowledging the receipt of a letter from the overseers of the poor of Needham, of the 20th of August, 1807, notifying them respecting the supplies made to the paupers, &c. The defendants objected to the admission of this letter ; but it was admitted by the judge, subject to the opinion' of the whole Court. There was, also, evidence tending to prove that the defendants had paid for supporting the ancestors of Joseph Child, from whom he derives his settlement, in several years between 1763, and 1790 ; and also * for supporting the said Joseph himself, [*453] from March, 1799, to March, 1800.
    The verdict was for the plaintiffs ; and. if the evidence admitted as aforesaid ought to have been rejected, the' verdict was to be set aside, and a new trial granted.
    In the course of the trial, the parties agreed, that, if the jury should find for the plaintiffs, they might return their verdict in blank, as to the damages, and that the amount thereof should be ascertained by an auditor, according to such rule as the Court should prescribe, and the blank in the verdict be filled accordingly. The judge appointed an auditor, with directions to allow the plaintiffs for the supplies furnished by them for the support of the paupers within the time set forth in the first count of the declaration, namely, from April 1st, 1810, to March 24th, 1812 ; and not for supplies, or for money paid within that time for supplies, previously furnished. The plaintiffs objected to this rule, and contended that they ought to be permitted to offer evidence of any supplies made, or for money paid for any supplies made, prior to the said 1st of April, 1810. If, in the opinion of the Court, the said objection of the plaintiffs ought to have prevailed, the damages were to be ascertained by another auditor, subject to such other rule as the Court should prescribe.
    
      Whitman and Richardson, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Bigelow and Chickering, for the defendants.
   Parker, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The statute gives an action to the inhabitants of a town, which shall have supplied a pauper in necessity, against the town wherein the pauper has his lawful settlement, for such sum only as shall have been expended within three months next before notice given to the town which is liable, and for such expenses as accrue afterwards, before the commencement of the suit. The statute likewise limits the action to two years after the cause of action accrued. There being no relief at common law, since there is no moral obligation on one town more than the other, the statute remedy must be strictly pursued.

[*454] * Now the facts reported in this case show, that no notice had been given by the overseers of Needham to the overseers of Newton, after the year 1807. This cannot be considered as a notice of the demand now sued for ; because it has all accrued since the .notice ; and, more than two years having elapsed after the cause of action existed, no action can now be maintained for that.

Had a suit been commenced upon the notice in 1807, and a judgment recovered against the defendants, they would have been concluded against contesting the settlement of the pauper in their town ; but a compromise has not the effect to bar a future contest. And it is right that it should not for towns may often yield to a demand for want of preparation to defend against it, and may afterwards obtain satisfactory evidence that they are not liable. We think that it has Keen settled in several cases, that a former notice not replied to, or proved to have been given, is not sufficient to support a demand accruing after such notice ; if more than two years have been suffered to elapse; and a payment of a former demand upon such notice cannot vary the principle.

There having been no notice, which can legally apply to the sum which is claimed in this action, and ascertained by the verdict, this must be set aside and

A new trial granted. 
      
      
        Leicester vs. Reholoth, 4 Mass. Rep. 180-Townsend, vs. Billerica, 10 Mass. Rep. 414.
     
      
      
        Townsend vs. Billerica, 10 Mass. Rep. 411. — Readfield vs. Dresden, ante, 317 — Walpole vs. Hopkinton, 4 Pick. 358.
     