Norval v. Cornell
Mary Norval against Cornell
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The only question is, whether the penalty was incurred or not. The case of Conkling v. Elting (2 Johns. Rep. 410.) is in point, that the 9th section of the act relative to turnpikes, (1 N.R. L. 234.) does not apply, or inflict a penalty, where toll is demanded of a person entitled to an exemption from paying it. It applies only to the hindering or delaying travellers and passengers bound to pay toll, or for taking more toll than the law allows.
Judgment reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.