map; but afterwards it became desirable, at the suggestion of the Poor Law Commissioners, that a reduced plan should be made, and the defendants gave the plaintiff a verbal order for it. The action was brought for making this latter plan; and the defendants denied their liability, as the contract for the work was not under seal. A verdict being given for the plaintiff, a motion was made for a new trial or to enter a nonsuit. And the Court, after argument, held that the defendants were not liable: as a general rule, in order to make a contract binding on a corporate body, it must be under seal;. but there is an exception to this, namely, of contracts which are necessarily incident to the purposes and objects for which the corporation was created, such as the drawing and accepting bills to a trading company, or the purchase of coal or machinery to a gas company; but the Court held that this contract was not within the exception, it having reference, not to the union generally, but to a single parish in it, the other parishes in the union having nothing to do with it, nor were they in any manner benefited by it. Rule absolute. R. v. Guardians of St. Neot's Union, 8 Q. B. 810; 15 Law J. 89, m. 10 J. P. 261, 279. Guardians, their Contracts. A In an action for work and labour against the defendants, for making iron gates for the workhouse of the union, the defendants denied their liability, as the contract for the work was not under seal; the defendants gave a verbal order for them to one of their officers, and he gave the order to the defendant. verdict being given for the plaintiff, the defendants moved for a new trial. But the Court held the defendants liable; it was not competent to the defendants to object to their liability, inasmuch as the work in question, after it was done and completed, was adopted by them for a purpose connected with the corporation. Rule refused. Clarke et al. v. The Guardians of the Cuckfield Union, Guardians, their Contracts. In an action for goods sold and delivered, for some water closets of the value of £12 15s. put up by the plaintiffs in the workhouse of the Cuckfield Union, by the direction and with the approbation of the defendants, they defended the action, on the ground that the contract was not under seal. A verdict being given for the plaintiffs, with liberty to move to enter a nonsuit, and a motion being made, Wightman, J. delivered the judgment. He said the objection was, that assuming the supply of the articles to have been such as was proper and needful for the workhouse, and that the defendants ordered them at a meeting of the board to be furnished by the plaintiffs, and afterwards approved of and kept them, and that if they had not been a corporation they would have been liable to pay for them,still as the guardians of the poor are a corporation, and sued in this instance as such, they are not liable, as their contract with the plaintiffs was not under seal. The injustice of allowing the defendants to have the benefit of the work done without paying for it, made it the more necessary to inquire strictly, whether the general rule of law applied to this case, or whether it falls within any exception which might enable the plaintiffs to recover. No doubt the general rule of law was that a corporation aggregate can only contract under seal; but the rule has been much relaxed; and the result of the cases upon the subject appears to be, that whenever a corporation is created for particular purposes, which involve the necessity for frequently entering into contracts for goods or works essentially necessary for carrying the works for which the corporation is created into execution, a demand for goods or works which have been actually supplied to and accepted by the corporation, and of which they have had the full benefit, may be enforced by action of assumpsit, and the corporation will be liable, although the contract was by parol and not by deed. Rule discharged. Guardians of the Wycombe Union v. The Guardians of the Eton Union, 26 Law J. 97, m; 21 J. P. 70. Remedy by Guardians for Relief given to the Non-resident Poor of another Union. A special case in the Exchequer without pleadings, by order of a judge, stated that the action was brought to recover monies paid by the plaintiffs at the request of the defendants, in respect of paupers resident in the plaintiffs' union, but belonging to and removable to parishes in the defendants' union. The only authority for the payments was by letters written by officers of the defendants' union, between August 1847, and March 1853, under the direction of the board of guardians, and not under seal. By an order of the Poor Law Commissioners, 24th July, 1847, Art. 80, it is required that every account for relief duly administered to non-resident poor, shall be discharged by the guardians within two calendar months from the receipt of such account, by the transmission of the amount due in one of the modes prescribed in Art. 79. And in Art. 202, prescribing the duties of the clerk, it was ordered that the duties of the clerk shall be, at the first meeting of the guardians in each quarter, to lay before the guardians or some committee appointed by them, the non-settled poor account, and the non-resident poor account, posted in his ledger to the end of the preceding quarter, and to take the directions of the guardians respecting the remittance of cheques or post office orders to the guardians of any other union or parish, or the transmission of accounts due from other unions or parishes, and requests for payment; and within fourteen days from the close of each quarter to transmit by post all accounts for relief administered in the course of the preceding quarter to non-resident poor, to the guardians of the unions or parishes on account of which such relief was given. These requirements had not been complied with; on the contrary, the plaintiffs, in July 1850, sent to the defendants an account of payments made between Lady-day, 1845, and Lady-day, 1847; and from Lady-day, 1850, to Lady-day, 1854, the accounts were made out sometimes quarterly, sometimes half-yearly, but in no case were they sent to the Eton Union within fourteen days after the expiration of the quarter or half-year, but at periods varying from one to three months after that time. After argument, the Court held that as to all payments made more than six years before action brought, the Statute of Limitations was a bar; and as to payments since that, the plaintiffs could not recover, as they had not complied with the requirements of the Poor Law Board. The guardians of a union are a corporation of a peculiar nature, created by Act of Parliament, who, strictly speaking, have no property, except for the purpose of relief, and it is their duty to administer the funds supplied by others in the manner directed by the statutes on the subject, and by the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners. Here the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners upon the subject were not complied with, and there was therefore no legal obligation on the guardians of the Eton Union to repay the money expended by the plaintiffs. In ordinary cases, an action for money paid will not lie, unless paid at the request of the defendant, or upon compulsion; which was not the case here. Judgment for the defendants. Smart v. The Guardians of the West Ham Union, 24 Lan J. 201; 19 J. P. 454. A Collector of Poor Rate cannot recover the Amount of his Poundage from the Guardians by whom he was appointed. This was an action brought by the collector of a union for the amount of his poundage on the money collected by him. An order of the Poor Law Commissioners directed the guardians of the West Ham Union to appoint a collector or collectors of the poor rate for the several parishes of the union, to be paid by a certain poundage; and one of the duties to be assigned to him was, that he was to pay over the money collected to the treasurer of the union weekly or oftener. The guardians accordingly appointed the plaintiff, and he collected the rates from 1847 to 1850, when he resigned. He had paid the whole of the sums collected to the treasurer; and the overseers of the several parishes (except Wanstead) paid him their respective shares of the poundage, but Wanstead refused to pay. The plaintiff then brought his action against the guardians, by whom he was appointed, for the amount of poundage which ought to have been paid by Wanstead; and at the trial a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, with liberty to the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit. After argument, the Court held that the action would not lie. The Act of Parliament under which the appointment was ordered, did not create any debt which the guardians were bound to pay; it does not say that the poundage is to be paid by the guardians; and therefore the present action cannot be maintained, there being no contract under seal. Rule absolute. R. v. Griffiths, 17 Q. B. 164. 15 J. P. 450. Election of Clerk to the Guardians. This was an application for a quo warranto information against Charles R. Griffiths, for exercising the office of clerk to the guardians of the parish of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. The Poor Law Commissioners by their order required the guardians to appoint a clerk; Griffiths and three others were candidates; Griffiths had 11 votes, another candidate 10, and there were no votes for the other two; Griffiths was accordingly appointed. And the object of this application was to try the validity of that appointment. There were 22 guardians present when it was made; but the chairman informed them that he intended not to vote for any of the candidates, but merely to preside at the meeting as chairman; and he did so, and took the votes. By an order of the Poor Law Commissioners, 8th December, 1847, Art. 38, every question at any meeting consisting of three or more guardians, shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the guardians present and voting, and if there be an equal number the question shall be deemed to be lost. And by Art. 155, every officer to be appointed under this order, shall be appointed by a majority of the guardians present at a meeting of more than three guardians, or by three if no more be present. The Court held the election to be bad; the chairman was a guardian present, within the meaning of the 155th article, and |