People v. President of Hillsdale & Chatham Turnpike Road
New York Supreme Court
Information in the nature of a quo ivarranto. In July term, 1837, the attorney-general filed an information in this case charging the company with with usurping the liberties and privileges of a turnpike company: to construct a road, erect turnpikes thereon and collect tolls from passen- [* 255 ] gers.
Read the full summary
Information in the nature of a quo ivarranto. In July term, 1837, the attorney-general filed an information in this case charging the company with with usurping the liberties and privileges of a turnpike company: to construct a road, erect turnpikes thereon and collect tolls from passen- [* 255 ] gers. The *defendants pleaded an act of the legislature passed 2d April, 1805, incorporating them as a turnpike company by the name now used by them, conferring upon them the privilege of constructing a road between certain points of territory, and upon the same being completed and approved and a…
1Opinion of the CourtCowen, J.
By the Court, The sufficiency of the pleadings in this case have not been questioned. The seventh replication, under which the special verdict was found, is too general to be maintained for any purpose, though this objection might be answered by showing substantial defects in the plea. I make the remark, in order to avoid such a replication being drawn into precedent; not to raise a point which the parties have doubtless waived by mutual consent, for the purpose of reaching the merits. This they had a right to do. The arguments of counsel thus having been confined entirely to the special…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barnes v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Bank of Niagara v. JohnsonNew York Supreme Court · 1832
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sprowl v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Erie & North-East Railroad v. CaseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
- Darnell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- People v. Broadway RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1891