
    Town of Jamaica vs. Town of Guilford.
    If one town support a pauper belonging to another town, the expense incurred for the support of such pauper can in no case he recovered against the town to which such pauper belongs, except by force of some statute regulation — there being no common law right of recovery in such case.
    An action of indebitatus assumpsit will lie against a corporation.
    
      Windham,
    
    May, 1824.
    THIS was an action of indebitatus assumpsit. The declara- . . , tion contained three counts.
    1st. — For moneys paid, laid out, and expended.
    2d. — For work and labor, care and diligence, and the services of the said town of Jamaica, in the support and maintenance of one Jerusha Cook, a pauper.
    3d. — The third count was a special one, setting forth the whole case, and the record, in part, of a judgment in a former suit, respecting the same pauper, in which Guilford had recovered a judgment against Jamaica, and taken out execution, and collected of Jamaica the amount thereof: After which, upon petition of Jamaica, a new trial was granted, in which new trial, a verdict was returned in favor of Jamaica, upon which the Court render, ed judgment that Jamaica recover of Guilford their costs, leaving the moneys collected by Guilford of Jamaica, upon the first judgment, in the possession of Guilford.
    Issue to the Jury, and verdict for the plaintiff.
    On a motion that the verdict be set aside and a new trial granted, founded upon exceptions taken at the trial, the Court» on argument, adhered to their opinion, as expressed in their charge to the Jury, and decided,
    1st. — That Jamaica is not entitled in law, to recover of Guil-ford, for expenses in keeping and supporting the pauper, after taking her back from the town of Guilford, (which they did do, and supported her from the period of the first judgment above mentioned, till the time of her death;) because, there is no common law right existing in such case.
    2dly. — That Jamaica is entitled to recover back the amount of moneys collected on the first judgment, which has since been vacated, together with interest on the same; and that it may well be recovered in this form of action; for, where money has been received under such circumstances, that it cannot legally be retained, there being no special promise to repay it, it is no greater fiction for the law to raise a promise by implication, against a corporation, than against an individual.
    
    
      
      
         See the case Proctor vs. Webber, 1 D. Chip. Rep. 379.
    
   Ordered, That the defendant take nothing by the motion for a new trial, and judgment rendered on the verdict.  