Beeler v. Turnpike Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the name of the President, Managers, and Company of the Pittsburgh Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Turnpike Road Company, for use of James S. Craft, vs. David Beeler. The case was tried in April, 1847, before Hepburn, J. The narr. contained two counts, one averring an indebtedness to plaintiffs for tolls, and a promise to pay.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the name of the President, Managers, and Company of the Pittsburgh Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Turnpike Road Company, for use of James S. Craft, vs. David Beeler. The case was tried in April, 1847, before Hepburn, J. The narr. contained two counts, one averring an indebtedness to plaintiffs for tolls, and a promise to pay. The second count alleged a special agreement to pay for the privilege of passing over the road, whereby he became indebted, and averring a promise to pay when requested. The defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Bell, J.
— It is true, that in the cases of the Turnpike Co. v. Rrown, 2 Pa. Rep. 462; Same v. Dorman, 3 Watts 126, and another not yet reported, it was held the law will not imply an assumpsit to pay tolls, from the mere user of a turnpike road, for the reason that the charters of turnpike companies furnish them with a summary remedy for the collection of tolls. To found an action at law, for the recovery of such dues, an express undertaking to pay is necessary. Rut what better evidence of such an undertaking can be furnished, than a defendant’s…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dorman v. Turnpike Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Hay v. HideSupreme Court of Vermont · 1814
3Cited by1 opinion
- Malin v. NussSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975