1. The ruling of the court as to the effect of the tender was in conformity with the principles laid down in Hubbard v. Knous, 7 Cush. 557. The declaration was not upon a special contract, to the proof of which the plaintiff would be held strictly at the trial; but it was in the nature of indebitatus assumpsit on the account annexed: under which the plaintiff might prove any sum to be due from the defendants for the board of the pauper, less than the amount charged for any
2. The only evidence of the contract between the parties was the vote of the town, duly recorded, passed at the meeting held on the 8th of April 1852, pursuant to an appropriate article in the warrant. It was under this vote that the plaintiff received the pauper into his care and service. The agreement being in writing, and unambiguous in its terms, no parol evidence or proof of usage was competent to explain or vary its meaning, or to control its construction or legal effect. The evidence offered by the plaintiff was rightly rejected.
Exceptions overruled.
*.
The remainder of the cases for this term (except where otherwise stated) were argued at Boston in January 1857 before Justices Dewey, Metcalf, Bigo tow and Thomas.