1 Blackf. 168 | Ind. | 1822
In support of the judgment, it is alleged that Conner, not being the owner of the land on the water side of Water street, was not entitled to receive a license to keep a ferry; and that his grant, is therefore void.' On the other side it is contended, that, by a liberal construction, the provisions of the statute would justify the grant to Conner; and that this statute ought to have a liberal construction. We think it unnecessary at present to decide this question. Conner obtained his grant of a ferry from the proper authority. He was bound, on obtaining his grant, to give bond for the faithful performance of the duties connected with it. He could not defend himself against an action brought on that bond, by pleading the illegality of his own grant. The grant to Conner is of record; it is a public act of a legal tribunal on a subject within their jurisdic
The judgment is reversed, with costs. To bé certified, &c.
The judgment was erroneous on another ground. The statute authorizing the grant of a ferry gives a penalty in case of disturbance; and the party injured is confined to the statutable remedy. Vide Almy v. Harris, 5 Johns. R. 175. — Lang v. Scott, Nov. term, 1825, post.