Shotwell v. Thornall

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Shotwell v. Thornall, 2 N.J.L. 136 (N.J. 1806)

Shotwell v. Thornall

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

— The action is wholly misconceived. The overseers expended the money of the township, they must *128account 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.

Vide 7 Halst. 124. — Ed.

Reference

Full Case Name
SHOTWELL against THORNALL, and others
Status
Published