Jones v. Estis

New York Supreme Court

Jones v. Estis

2 Johns. 380

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1807

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 Johns. 380 (Jones v. Estis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Estis, 2 Johns. 380 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1807).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

The penalty of five dollars, in the Water Vliet turnpike act, is clearly not imposed. The Cherry Valley act, by establishing the like rates of toll as in the Water Vliet act, did not thereby establish the penalties imposed in the latter act. We are also inclined to think that no penalty was imposed, even by the reference to the Mudsoji turnpikeact, but that the present is a casus omissus. There is nothing said in the Cherry Valley act about penalties, and a penalty cannot be raised by implication, but must be expressly created and imposed.

Judgment reversed,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam

The penalty of five dollars, in the Water Vliet turnpike act, is clearly not imposed. The Cherry Valley act, by establishing the like rates of toll as in the Water Vliet act, did not thereby establish the penalties imposed in the latter act. We are also inclined to think that no penalty was imposed, even by the reference to the Mudsoji turnpikeact, but that the present is a casus omissus. There is nothing said in the Cherry Valley act about penalties, and a penalty cannot be raised by implication, but must be expressly created and imposed.

Judgment reversed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Johns. 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-estis-nysupct-1807.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack