This was an action of assumpsit by the board of commissioners of Switzerland county against Benjamin Hildebrand. The declaration contained three counts. The first was for the board and lodging of the wife of the defendant The second was for the board, lodging, &c., of the wife of the defendant in the poorhouse of Switzerland county. The third was for the board, lodging, &c., of the wife of the defendant in said poor-house, and alleged, in addition, that the defendant neglected and refused to provide for her. It did not state *556whether the neglect arose from poverty, from inability to support, or otherwise. There was a general demurrer to the whole declaration. The demurrer was sustained, and final judgment given for the defendant.
J. Dumont, for the plaintiff.
J. T. Brown and E. Dumont, for the defendant. _
The first count in the declaration was bad. The commissioners of Switzerland county could not open a boarding-house, and carry on the business of boarding, &c., for pay, at the expense of the county.
The second count was bad. The county commissioners could not convert the Switzerland county poor-house into a boarding house for such as wished accommodations for pay.
The thh'd count was bad. If Hildebrand’s wife was a proper subject to be placed in the poor-house, and, nothing appearing to the contrary, we mast presume she was, from the fact of her being placed there by the overseers of the poor, (as is shown by the declaration,) no person is liable to the county for her support while there. And if she was not a proper subject for the poor-house, then the act of placing her there was unauthorized, and the commissioners, according to the decision upon the first and second counts, could not sue for her maintenance. We consider the provision made for the poor of the state, as a charity which the public is bound to bestow. No authority is given by law to the commissioners of a county to sue, as in this case, for the support of a pauper (1).
The judgment is affirmed with costs.