People ex rel. Bishop v. Kingston & Middletown Turnpike Road Co.
New York Supreme Court
Information in the nature of a quo ivarranto. In January term, 1839, the attorney general filed an information in the nature of a quo warranto, against the Kingston and Middletown Turnpike Road Company, charging them with usurping the liberties, privileges and franchises of being a body politic and corporate, by the name of the Kingston and Middletown Turnpike Road Company, and by that name to construct and maintain a turnpike road within certain *bounds, (specifying the…
Read the full summary
Information in the nature of a quo ivarranto. In January term, 1839, the attorney general filed an information in the nature of a quo warranto, against the Kingston and Middletown Turnpike Road Company, charging them with usurping the liberties, privileges and franchises of being a body politic and corporate, by the name of the Kingston and Middletown Turnpike Road Company, and by that name to construct and maintain a turnpike road within certain *bounds, (specifying the same,) £ *195 ] and to erect and maintain gates and turnpikes upon such road, and to levy and collect tolls from all…
1Opinion of the CourtNelson, C. J.
By the Court, It is contended that the matters set forth in the several replications of the attorney-general, are not causes of forfeiture of the corporate privileges of the defendants, and that, therefore, the replications are no answers to the plea. The first 24, contain matters which, if true, shew a failure to perform six separate and distinct conditions annexed to the grant, specifying particularly the nature of each. The remain, ing replications will be noticed hereafter. The question for the present *204will be, whether this breach, or neglect to comply with any or [ *204 ] all the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. President & Directors of the Manhattan Co.New York Supreme Court · 1832
- Stuart v. RichNew York Supreme Court · 1803
- Livingstons v. LivingstonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
3Cited by50 opinions
- Havemeyer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- People v. North River Sugar Refining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Chicago City Railway Co. v. People ex rel. StoryIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Erie & North-East Railroad v. CaseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
- City of New York v. . BryanNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.