Medford Turnpike Corp. v. Torrey
This text of 19 Mass. 538 (Medford Turnpike Corp. v. Torrey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question is, whether the making of bricks for sale on a lot of land principally and usually occupied for purposes of farming, comes within the terms, “ common labors of his farm ” ; and we think that the question thus distinctly put answers itself in the mind of every one. The legislature meant to restrict this exemption to such passing as should be necessary or convenient for the purposes of husbandry, and they used the most fit words for the expression of such intention. Common labors of a farm no farmer would apply to the working of a brick-kiln, a distillery, or any other manufacturing establishment, which may be erected on the land owned by the defendant. A general exemption certainly was not intended, and perhaps no form of words could have been better chosen to exclude the particular business for which the toll is demanded in this action.
Defendant defaulted.
See Newburgh &c. Co. v. Belknap, 17 Johns. R. 33 ; Bates v. Sutherland 15 Johns. R. 510 ; Wooster v. Van Vechten, 10 Johns. R. 467 ; Stratton v. Herrick, 9 Johns. R. 356 ; Stratton v. Hubbel, ibid. 357 ; Hearsay v. Boyd, 7 Johns. R. 183 ; Chestney v. Coon, 8 Johns. R. 116.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
19 Mass. 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medford-turnpike-corp-v-torrey-mass-1824.