Skinner v. Anderson
New York Supreme Court
' The plaintiff brought this action before a justice of the peace, and recovered against the defendant the amount of four penalties of f>5 each, for exacting and receiving from him more toll than he was liable to pay for traveling and passing over the Bridgewater and Utica plank road.
Read the full summary
' The plaintiff brought this action before a justice of the peace, and recovered against the defendant the amount of four penalties of f>5 each, for exacting and receiving from him more toll than he was liable to pay for traveling and passing over the Bridgewater and Utica plank road. The defendant was a toll-gatherer upon the road named, and the plaintiff was a clergyman residing at Deerfield, about 18 miles from Bridgewater, and he preached at the latter place every alternate sabbath, and on going from his residence to the place of his labors passed through Utica, in which city was a church…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
W. F. Allew, J.
The question first in order is upon the validity of the plaintiff’s claim to exemption from the payment of toll; for if that claim is unfounded the action necessarily fails. By the act of 1849, in relation to plank and turnpike roads, and which was in force at the time of the alledged unlawful exactions, and by which this action is to be decided, “ Persons going to or from religious meetings,” were exempt from the payment of tolls at the gates of the several plank road companies formed under the act referred to. (Laws of 1849, p. 374, § 2, sub. 3.) Under this…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Conklin v. EltingNew York Supreme Court · 1807
- Chestney v. CoonNew York Supreme Court · 1811
3Cited by1 opinion
- Van Buren v. WylieMichigan Supreme Court · 1885