Shotwell v. Thornall ( 1806 )

By the Court.

— The action is wholly misconceived. The overseers expended the money of the township, they must account with the town for the money expended; and have no authority to demand the same of defendant below. If any action can be sustained, it must be by the township, in its corporate name.¹

Cited in Inhabitants Saddle River v. Colfax, 1 Halst 115; Board v. Cronk, 1 Halst. 119; Taylor v. Green, 7 Halst. 124; Overs of Hobohen v. Reed, 3 Vr. 418.

1 Vide 7 Halst. 124. — Ed.