
    The Inhabitants of Embden versus The Inhabitants of Augusta.
    A notice from the overseers of one town to those of another, that the family of J. S. has become chargeable, was holden to be too general; but, the settlement being contested in the answer, and no objection taken to the deficiency of the notice, it was considered as a waiver of the objection.
    Assumpsit for the support of Betsey Savage, wife of James Savage, and Esther, their daughter.
    The cause was submitted to the decision of the Court, upon a statement of facts, in which it was agreed by the parties that the paupers had a legal settlement in flugusta, derived from the said James, and that the plaintiffs had duly expended the sum demanded in this action, in the support of the said paupers, within three months previous to the following notice, sent by the overseers of the poor of Embden to the overseers of the poor of Augusta.
    
    
      “ Gentlemen, — You are hereby notified that the family of James Savage, now residing in the town of Embden, in the county of Somerset, have become poor, and have applied to the overseers of the poor of said town of Embden for relief ; and, understanding that the legal settlement of said Savage is in the town of Augusta, in the county of Kennebec, you are hereby required to make immediate provision for the support of said family, or remove them to said town of Augusta, and pay the charges that have already accrued for their support.” Signed by the overseers of Embden, and dated April 28th, 1813.
    To this notice the overseers of Augusta replied as follows, namely ; — “ Gentlemen,— We hereby inform you, that the family of James Savage, whom you describe in your letter, are not inhabitants of this town, and have no legal settlement therein ; and that we utterly refuse to contribute any thing towards their support, or to remove them from your town, or to pay any charges that have already accrued * by their being supported at the expense of the [*308] town of Embden.” Signed by the overseers of Augusta, and dated May 3d, 1813.
    If, upon the facts stated, the Court should be of opinion that the defendants were chargeable in this action, they were to suffer judgment to go against them by default ; otherwise, the plaintiffs were to become nonsuit.
    
      Williams, for the defendants,
    objected to the notice in this case, as it neither contained the names nor the number of paupers whose removal was requested ; and was therefore wholly insufficient to charge the defendants. 
    
    
      Rice, for the plaintiffs.
    The action being continued nisi for advisement, the opinion of the Court was pronounced at the following term in Berkshire, by
    
      
      
         Stat. 1793, c. 59, § 12. — Dalton vs. Hinsdale, 6 Mass. Rep. 501. — 2 Salk. 482, 485 3D. & E. 44, 637.
    
   Parker, C. J.

The only question presented in this case relates to the notice given by the overseers of Embden to the overseers of Augusta. The notice is, in general terms, that the family of James Savage had applied for relief; and the objection is, that this is uncertain, inasmuch as the overseers of Augusta might not know what individuals composed that family, so as to provide for their removal or support. And the notice is certainly defective, as it may put the overseers of a town to great inconvenience to undertake the removal or the support of a family, without knowing of what number it may be composed.

But a notice which is deficient, if unanswered or not particularly objected to, may become sufficient by an acceptance of it by the adverse party, or by a waiver of any advantage arising from the deficiency. And the answer given in this case proves clearly that the overseers of Augusta were made acquainted with all the facts which were necessary to be known, to enable them to decide whether that town was liable or not. They reply, that the family of James Savage have no settlement in Augusta ; and they utterly refuse either to remove or to support them, or to pay the expenses which had been incurred. This answer was calculated to satisfy the over-[*309] seers of Embden, that *the point in dispute would be the settlement of the paupers, and that there would be no formal objection with respect to the notice.

It has the appearance of disingenuousness, after appearing to be satisfied with the notice, to make a deficiency of this kind a point of defence against the action. We 'consider the overseers of Augusta as having accepted the notice, and as having waived all objections to its want of particularity.

Defendants defaulted. 
      
      
        Walpole vs. Hopkinton, 4 Pick. 358.— Lanesborough vs. Ashford, 5 Pick 190.
     
      
      
         Paris vs. Hiram, ante, 262. — Shutesbury vs. Oxford, 16 Mass. Rep. 102.
     