
    *The Inhabitants of Braintree versus The Inhabitants of Hingham.
    It is no sufficient bar to an action by the town of A, against the town of B, that the plaintiffs had given notice to the town of C, and claimed payment of the same sums; and, such notice not being answered according to the statute, had recovered judgment therefor against the town' of C.
    
    Assumpsit for the expense of supporting Mary Lovis and her two children, paupers, alleged by the plaintiffs to have their lawful settlement in Hingham.
    
    The defendants plead in bar that long before the commencement of this action, the overseers of the poor of Braintree gave legal notice to the overseers of the poor of the town of Marblehead, that the said paupers had become chargeable to Braintree, and that their settlement was in Marblehead; to which notice no answer being returned within two months, the now plaintiffs in September, 1820, obtained a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, against the inhabitants of Marblehead, for the same expenses, for which they demand payment in the present action.
    To this plea the plaintiffs demur, and assign duplicity as a cause of demurrer. The defendants join in demurrer.
    
      Whitman, for the defendants.
    It is very clear that the proceedings against Marblehead furnish an estoppel to that town to question the settlement of these paupers. Now, if they are legally settled in Marblehead, it is certain they cannot be settled in Hingham; for no one can have two settlements at the same time. It is true that in cases of private concern, an estoppel applies only as between the same parties or privies; but in affairs of a public and general nature, all persons may avail themselves of an estoppel. Such was plainly the intent of the legislature, in the statute of 1793, c. 59, § 9. The reason of the provision in that section extends to the present case, as much as it would to an action against the town of Marblehead. In the cases of Leicester vs. Rehoboth 
      , Marlborough vs. Rutland 
      , Greene vs. Monmouth 
      , and Freeport vs. Edgecumbe 
      , it will be seen that all parties are estopped, when the matter depends on notice given and not answered. The present case is the stronger, in that the suit is for [ * 433 ] * the very sum, which the plaintiffs have recovered against the town of Marblehead.
    
    Thatcher, for the plaintiffs.
    
      
       4 Mass. Rep. 180.
    
    
      
       11 Mass. Rep. 483.
    
    
      
       7 Mass. Rep. 467.
    
    
      
       1 Mass. Rep. 459
    
   Curia.

The plea in bar is insufficient. The facts stated in it arose inter alios. None are estopped by deed or by pleadings, but parties and privies; and none others can take advantage of an estoppel. The defendants are strangers to the record in the former suit. If the plaintiffs have heretofore made a mistake in calling upon a town not liable, this furnishes no reason why they should not be permitted to call on another town, whom they ha\e since discovered to be legally answerable.  