
    The Inhabitants of Readfield versus The Inhabitants of Dresden.
    No action lies for a town for the support of a pauper, having his lawful settlement in another town, for any expenses incurred more than two years before action brought. And, where an inhabitant of the town of A., after a refusal by the overseers, had himself supported a pauper having his lawful settlement in B., and afterwards recovered satisfaction therefor of the town of A., it was holden, that A. could not maintain an action against B., although such satisfaction wag recovered within two years, the original expense having been longer incurred
    
      [*317] * This was assumpsit for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for the support of one Ann Crouch, who was a pauper and in distress at Readfield ; but whose legal settlement was in Dresden. The action was commenced in August, 1811.
    A verdict was taken before the present Chief Justice, October term, 1813, by consent, for $280.90, subject to be reduced by the Court to the sum of $80, with interest from April 10th, 1811, if the Court should determine that no more was, by law, recoverable upoP the following facts.
    “It is agreed, that no other notice was given by the overseers ft Readfield to the overseers of Dresden of any expenses incurred ba fore April, 1811, than that which was given in August, 1808 ; which it is agreed was sufficient at that time. But the defendants contend, that, no suit having been commenced until more than three years after the date of that notice, the plaintiffs have lost their remedy for any expenses then incurred.
    “ It is also agreed, that all the expenses beyond the sum of $ 80 were incurred by one Constant Norton, an inhabitant of the town of Readfield, after notice to the overseers of that town, and a request that they would support the pauper, who refused or neglected so to do. The said Norton afterwards commenced an action against the inhabitants of Readfield, for the money due to him on account of said expenses, and, in October, 1810, recovered judgment for the same, which has been satisfied. On the 15th of January, 1811, further notice, sufficient in point of form, was given to the overseers of Dresden.
    
    “ If the Court should be of opinion that the defendants are liable for the sum so paid to Norton by the plaintiffs, the ver[*318] diet is to stand ; otherwise, to be so altered as to * stand for the sum of $ 80, with interest as before stated, and judgment rendered accordingly.
    
      Mellen and Campbell, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Bond, for the defendants.
   Per Curiam.

So much of the account of expenses, as was due more than two years before the commencement of the action, cannot be recovered. The limitation in the statute is a bar to it. And the expense having been incurred by Norton, and the suit by him against Readfield for it not being determined, and the money paid by the town, until October, 1810,.can make no difference. The cause of action accrued to the town of Readfield when the expense was incurred ; and it was their own negligence that they did not sooner reimburse Norton. The statute gives no remedy but for the expense of maintenance. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to no inore than $ 80, with the interest thereon. The verdict is to be altered to conform to this opinion, and judgment entered thereon.

On the 26th day of May, 1815, departed this life, at his residence, in Williamstown, Berkshire County, the Honorable Daniel Dewet one of the Justices of this Court, in the-year of his age. H left the world in the prime of manhood ; but that life can never b accounted short which is filled with acts of duty to God, and of use fulness to mankind. An affectionate sketch of the character of the; deceased, by Chief Justice Parker, will be found in a supplement ta this volume 
      
      
        Needham vs. Newton, post, 452. — Townsend vs. Billerica, 10 Mass. Rep. 411. — Harwick vs. Hallowell, 14 Mass. Rep. 184. — Watson vs. Cambridge, 15 Mass. Rep. 286.
     