delivered the opinion of the court.

There can be no doubt that this was the money of the township, which the overseers expended, and that the overseers acted but as the agents of the township; the action, therefore should have been brought in the name of the principal. The case of Shotwell v. Thornall, 1 Penn. Pep. 136, is exactly in point, and must govern this.

Let the judgment be reversed.