
    Trustees of Springfield Township v. Ellison Demott.
    Where money is expended by the trustees of a township, in a county having a poor-house, for the support, as a pauper, of a wife abandoned by her husband, the moneys may bo recovered from him, in a suit by the trustees, without her removal to the county poor-house.
    This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Lucas county.
    An action of assumpsit was brought by the trustees of Springfield township against Demott, for the amount ^expended for the support of his wife. The bill of exceptions shows that Demott had deserted his wife; that she had her settlement in Springfield ; that she required assistance for her support; that the trustees gave notice of her suffering condition to the defendant, who refused all aid, although possessing sufficient ability; that she received the necessaries for her support as as a pauper, she being too unwell to bo removed, with safety to the county poorhouse, and requiring immediate help. This suit is brought to recover the money expended for this purpose. The common pleas gave a nonsuit upon this proof, expressing, for reasons in the bill of exceptions, that the plaintiff being a corporation — a creature of the law — and limited to the exercise of express powers only, could recover no moneys except those expended after the strictest compliance with the statute.
    Young and Waite, for plaintiff, cited:
    ' Swan’s Stat. 635, sects. 5, 6, 7, 8; Ib. 640, see. 9; Township of Hanover v. Turner, 14 Mass. 227; Crittenden v. Wilson, 5 Cow. 165; Alna v. Plumer, 4 Greenleaf, 258; School District v. Wood, 13 Mass. 192.
    John Fitch, for defendant, cited :
    Swan’s Stat. 949; Angel and Ames on Corporations, 16; Fourth School District v. Wood, 13 Mass. 192; Swan’s Stat. 635; Ib. 611; 2 Strange, 1122; Clancy’s Rights of Married Women, 28.
   Lane, C. J.

It is a new element of limitation to corporate powers, and a novel inference deduced from the decision of the case of the Bank of Chillicothe v. Swayne, 8 Ohio, 257, that the trustees of townships can not administer to the wants of paupers, even to save life, except through the forms which regulate their ordinary official acts.

*But we are relieved from the necessity of adjudicating most of the points in this case by following previous decisions. In Howard v. Whetstone Township, 10 Ohio, 365, this court determined that a husband is liable for money expended for the support of his wife, as a pauper, under the common counts of assumpsit.

The only point in this case not covered by that decision, is, whether the trustees of townships in counties having a poor-house, can recover expenditures made by themselves, by suit.

Section 5 of the act for the relief of the poor, Swan’s Stat. 635, requires that the trustees of a township in a county having a poorhouse, finding a person ought to be relieved at public expense, shall issue an order for the directors of the poor-house to receive him.

The act establishing poor-houses, Swan’s Stat. 640, directs tho support of such pauper in the poor-house, and section 8 provides for the payment of the expenses of the removal, and of the exjjenses immediately preceding; these are borne by the county.

But we can not regard the removal to the county poor-house as a condition precedent to a recovery from the person upon whom the burden of support ought to fall. The pauper may recover, or may die before a removal becomes practicable. Indeed, it appears to us that if the township trustees chose to waive its right to indemnity from the county, and look to those who ought equitably and ultimately to sustain the burden, there occurs to us no valid objection to the claim. It is rather advantageous than injurious to the debtor, because the amount is not enhanced by intermediate expenses. Judgment reversed.  