Legal Opinion

Van Buren v. Wylie

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1885PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Kent. (Montgomery, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, C. J.

The defendant was a gate-keeper on a gravel road, and was sued for penalties under How. Stat. § 363ff for exacting “more toll than by law he is authorized to collect.” The claim of the plaintiff was that he was not liable to any toll at all '.first, because the road was not in such condition as to justify the collection of any toll; and second,. because the plaintiff at^he time was merely passing through, the gate in going from one part of his farm to another.

If the facts were as plaintiff claims, I do not think the statute applies. The penalty given by the statute is given for taking…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bradish v. SchenckNew York Supreme Court · 1811
  2. Conklin v. EltingNew York Supreme Court · 1807
  3. Commonwealth v. CarmaltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1810
  4. President of Newburgh & Cochecton Turnpike Co. v. BelknapNew York Supreme Court · 1819
  5. Norval v. CornellNew York Supreme Court · 1819

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. EllisMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
  2. People v. ClobridgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  3. People v. GansleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1916

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API