President of Newburgh & Cochecton Turnpike Co. v. Belknap
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas, of the county of Orange. The plaintiffs brought an action of assumpsit in the court below, against the defendant, to recover toll claimed to be due to them from the defendant, for travelling, with his cattle and carriages, on the turnpike road, and through the gate in Newburgh, belonging to the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas, of the county of Orange. The plaintiffs brought an action of assumpsit in the court below, against the defendant, to recover toll claimed to be due to them from the defendant, for travelling, with his cattle and carriages, on the turnpike road, and through the gate in Newburgh, belonging to the plaintiffs. It was proved, that the defendant, and his servants, had passed through the toll gate divers times, in the years 1813, 1814, and 1815; and tliat the defendant being asked by the toll-gatherer, in 1813, to whom the toll was to be charged, answered, that…
1Per curiam
The whole question depends on the construction to be given to the proviso to the 10th section of the act incorporating the plaintiffs. (2 K. 8f li. 459. sess. 24. ch. 36.) That section fixes the rates of toll demandable, from all persons using the road, at the gates ; and the proviso declares, that nothing in the act shall be construed to entitle the corporation to demand toll of or from any person passing to or *38from public worship, on Sunday, or to or from his common business on his farm, &fC.
We think that the court below did not err in their construction of the act. The defendant had two…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Van Buren v. WylieMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Cummings v. WaringNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Green Mountain Turnpike Co. v. HemmingwaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1830
- Proprietors of the Second Turnpike Road v. TaylorSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834