
    The Trustees of Bridgewater Academy versus Nathaniel Gilbert.
    The defendant and others subscribed certain sums for rebuilding an academy, and the trustees, without any other act on his part, purchased materials for building, and then he refused to pay the sum subscribed by him. Held, that an action would not lie against him on the paper itself, nor on the ground of money paid at his request.
    Assumpsit. The plaintiffs declared specially upon a subscription paper containing the following words, viz. “We the subscribers being desirous that the academy edifice should be rebuilt immediately, do hereby promise to pay to the committee which may be chosen by the trustees of the Bridgewater academy, for the purpose of rebuilding the same, the several sums of money, materials or labor for the above Durpose, which shall be set against our names. 4th Feb. 1822.” This paper was signed by the defendant and several others", and to the defendant’s name was set “ twenty-five dollars lumber.” The declaration contained also a count for money paid, &c.
    The plaintiffs proved at the trial, before Parker C. J., that they were incorporated in 1799 for the purpose of establishing an academy in the south parish of Bridgewater; that a building was soon after erected for that purpose, which was used accordingly until January, 1822, when it was consumed by fire; and that on the 11th of February, 1822, the trustees voted to rebuild, whenever in the opinion of the trustees there should be competent funds, and to sell the land on which the former building had stood, and purchase other land, for the purpose of rebuilding, as near as might be to the old site. This was after the subscription paper had been signed by the defendant. A new building was erected by a committee appointed by the trustees, on a lot given to the institution for that purpose, twenty-seven rods from the former site, and the bricks were contracted for in February and the boards, m March, after the defendant had subscribed, and before he had signified any intention not to pay his subscription. On being called upon for some sticks of timber he refused to furnish any, and then declared his intention not to pay, on account of the building’s being erected on the new site, which was twenty-seven rods farthei from his house than the old one.
    The Chief Justice being doubtful whether the plaintiffs could maintain an action upon the subscription paper, there being no evidence of any subsequent promise, express or implied, except as above stated, directed a nonsuit, with liberty to move for a new trial.
    
      W. Baylies now moved to set aside the nonsuit, on the .ground, that in consequence of this subscription the trustees incurred a liability before the defendant retracted his promise, and then it was too late for him to retract. Farmington Academy v. Allen, 14 Mass. R. 172. The defendant lived near the academy and had a knowledge of the proceedings of the trustees, or it is to be presumed that he had, and he ought to have given them seasonable notice that he would not be bound by his subscription.
    
      Morton, for the defendant,
    relied on Phillips Limerick 
      
      Academy v. Davis, 11 Mass. R. 113, and Farmington Academy v. Allen, before cited.
   Parker C. J.,

in delivering the opinion of the Court, said in substance, that it had been determined, in the case of a subscription for a public benefit, that the subscription paper itself would not support an action. In Farmington Academy v. Allen a new fact was introduced. There the defendant paid a part of the amount subscribed by him, and did not intimate that he should refuse to pay the residue; and the principle was adopted, that the paying of part, in that manner, having induced the plaintiffs to incur expenses on the faith of his subscription, he was under an obligation to reimburse them as for money paid at his implied request. In the present case there are not sufficient circumstances to make the defendant liable. The subscription paper will not sustain the action, and the defendant, after he had signed it, gave the plaintiffs no encouragement to proceed in rebuilding. The beginning to provide materials on the faith of the subscription paper alone, was not sufficient to show that expenses were incurred at his implied request.

Motion to take off the nonsuit overruled. 
      
       See Amherst Academy v. Cowls, 6 Pick. 427; 2 Kent’s Comm. (2d ed.) 465 ; Church in Hanson v. Stetson, 5 Pick. 506 ; Hill v. Buckminster, 5 Pick, 391.
     