Norval v. Cornell
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court. The defendant in error brought an action in the Court below against the plaintiff in error, who was a toll-gatherer at one of the gates of the New Windsor and Cornwall turnpike road, for stopping and demanding toll of his son while returning from the mill with his team, and not letting him pass until he paid the toll.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court. The defendant in error brought an action in the Court below against the plaintiff in error, who was a toll-gatherer at one of the gates of the New Windsor and Cornwall turnpike road, for stopping and demanding toll of his son while returning from the mill with his team, and not letting him pass until he paid the toll. It was proved that the plaintiff’s son went with his father’s team and grist to a mill, and passed the gate on his way to the mill, without being required to pay toll; that he returned without the grist, not being able to get it…
1Per curiam
The only question is, whether the penalty was incurred or not. The case of Conkling v. Elting (2 Johns. Rep. 410.) is in point, that the 9th section of the act relative to turnpikes, (1 N.R. L. 234.) does not apply, or inflict a penalty, where toll is demanded of a person entitled to an exemption from paying it. It applies only to the hindering or delaying travellers and passengers bound to pay toll, or for taking more toll than the law allows.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Van Buren v. WylieMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Marr v. BarrettSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1856
- Starkweather v. PrinceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1873