Proprietors of the Second Turnpike Road v. Taylor
Superior Court of New Hampshire
; Assumpsit to recover certain tolls, alleged to be due .from the defendant, for passing over the plaintiffs’ turnpike road.
Read the full summary
; Assumpsit to recover certain tolls, alleged to be due .from the defendant, for passing over the plaintiffs’ turnpike road. The case carne before the court upon a statement of facts, by which it appeared, that the plaintiffs are duly incorporated, and organized according to The provisions of their charter, and have completed’ their road, the westerly end of which is within the town of Claremont, and erected a gate thereon within said town — that the defendant is, and for a long time has been, an inhabitant of said town, living- easterly of said gate — that at the times when he travelled…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Paeker J.
The defendant does not bring his case within the proviso in the plaintiffs’[charter. He went to Weathersfield in Vermont to purchase lumber for bis own use. If this might be considered as within the common and ordinary business of family concerns, (17 Johns. 33; 2 Vermont Rep. 512; 2 Pick. 533) the place to which he went to transact this business was not within the same town in which he resided, and he is not therefore entitled to exemption upon that clause of the proviso. 4 Pick. 388, Kent v. Newburyport Turnpike.
Had the case stated, that the defendant went to a mill…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Whiting v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- President of Newburgh & Cochecton Turnpike Co. v. BelknapNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- Chesley v. SmithSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1817