Legal Opinion

Murfin v. Detroit & Erin Plank-Road Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 13, 1897PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Wayne; Steere, J., presiding. Case by James O. Murfin against the Detroit & Erin Plank-Road Company for preventing plaintiff from riding a bicycle upon defendant’s road without the payment of toll. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

This is an action brought against a toll-road company for stopping the plaintiff at defendant’s toll-gate, and preventing him from proceeding to ride a bicycle upon its road without the payment of toll. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

The only question submitted is that of the right of the defendant to charge toll for the use of its road by persons riding bicycles. The rights of the defendant are statutory, and its right to charge toll is to be determined by section 3582, 1 How. Stat., viz.:

“Whenever any such company…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Myers v. HindsMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Detroit & Birmingham Plank Road Co. v. Detroit Suburban Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Turner v. EslickTennessee Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Richardson v. Inhabitants of DanversMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
  3. Lee v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
  4. People v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Great Lakes Motorcycle Dealers Ass'n, Inc. v. DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972

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

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

Powered by the Exa API