Shotwell v. Thornall
2 N.J.L. 136
Opinion
— The action is wholly misconceived. The overseers expended the money of the township, they must [128]*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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Shotwell v. Thornall, 2 N.J.L. 136 (N.J. 1806).
2 N.J.L. 136 (Shotwell v. Thornall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.