
    The District Township of Norway v. The District Township of Clear Lake.
    1. Money had and deceived. Wlion money is received by one and belongs to another, the law implies a promise on the part of the receiver to pay it, and the party entitled to it may maintain an action for its recovery.
    
      Appeal from Hamilton District Court.
    Monday, April 15.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      
      J. Skinner, for the appellant
    relies upon the following authorities: Barb. S. C. E. 370; 1 Wend. 355; 2 Eich. 317; 8 Ire. 441; Pars. Cont. 40, 41, 42; 2 Kent 620; 15 John. 41; Ripley v. Gelsten 9; John. 208; 2 Smiths L. C. 343 and the cases there cited.
    
      John A. Kasson, for the appellee.
    The action for money had and received lies against a mere intruder or trespasser: O’ Oonley v. Natchez, 1 Sm. & Mar. 31. And generally when money is received by one which belongs to another, the law raises a promise on the part of the receiver to pay it over. Hawley v. Sage, 15, Conn. 52 ; Hitchcock v. Lulcens, 8 Pat. 333; Moses v. MeEarlan, 2 Burr. 1005; Mason v. White, 17 Mass. 563; Hall v. Marsion 17 lb. 579: Eagle Bank v. Smith 5 Conn. 71; Benniman v. Paichin, 5 Ver. 346.
    And it lies against a corporation aggregate, just as it does against an individual. B’k Columbia v. Pattenais, Admr. 7 Cranch. 299; Ches. Co. v. Knapp, 9 Pet. 564: Hayden v. Midd. T. Co. 10 Mass. 400 — 1, 397.
   Wright, J.

If money is received by one which belongs to another, the rule is a general one, that the law implies a promise on the part of the receiver, to pay it over. Based upon this implied promise an action may be maintained for its recovery. And this rule applies to corporations as to individuals.

Where, therefore, the petition showed that in August 1858, the township of Norway was legally organized, being before a part of the township of Clear Lake; that fifty of the eighty school children in the old township were in the new; that an apportionment of the school money (teachers fund) was made by the county judge, based upon the superintendent’s report, which was made prior to the organization of Norway; that following this apportionment all the school money was paid in April, 1859, to the old township; that the officers receiving the same had notice that the due proportion of said money belonged to the new township, and were informed that when called for it must be paid .over, and that they received the same with that understanding; that the same had been demanded and refused: Held, that the action for money had and received, could be maintained against the old township, and that a demurrer to the petition was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.  