Jones v. Estis
New York Supreme Court
ON certiorari. The plaintiff below brought an action of debt against the defendant below, to recover the penalty of five dollars» for not permitting the plaintiff below to pass free of toll, through the turnpike gate sX Middle-field, on the turnpike road established from Cherry Val: ley to Chenango River, by an act passed the 4th April, 1801. A witness for the plaintiff below proved, that the defendant below was the toll gatherer at the gate, and that the plaintiff informed…
Read the full summary
ON certiorari. The plaintiff below brought an action of debt against the defendant below, to recover the penalty of five dollars» for not permitting the plaintiff below to pass free of toll, through the turnpike gate sX Middle-field, on the turnpike road established from Cherry Val: ley to Chenango River, by an act passed the 4th April, 1801. A witness for the plaintiff below proved, that the defendant below was the toll gatherer at the gate, and that the plaintiff informed him, that he had been from his home at Duanesburgh to De Ruyter, for the purpose of attending public worship, and for no…
1Per curiam
The penalty of five dollars, in the Water Vliet turnpike act, is clearly not imposed. The Cherry Valley act, by establishing the like rates of toll as in the Water Vliet act, did not thereby establish the penalties imposed in the latter act. We are also inclined to think that no penalty was imposed, even by the reference to the Mudsoji turnpikeact, but that the present is a casus omissus. There is nothing said in the Cherry Valley act about penalties, and a penalty cannot be raised by implication, but must be expressly created and imposed.
Judgment reversed,
L. JY. Y. v. 2. p. 396.398. ‡ L. JY.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. GauntOregon Supreme Court · 1885
- Lowenberg v. PeopleNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- McComb v. BelknapNew York Supreme Court · 1892