Turnpike Road

A road or highway over which the public have the right to travel upon payment of toll, and on which the parties entitled to such toll have the right to erect gates and bars to insure its payment. 6 Mees. & W. 428; 1 Ry. Cas. 665; 22 Eng. Law & Eq. 113; 16 Pick. (Mass.) 175; 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 492. TURPIS CAUSA (Lat.) A base or vile consideration, forbidden by law, which makes the contract void; as, a contract the consideration of which is the future illegal cohabitation of the obligee with the obligor. TURPIS EST PARS QUAE NON CONVEnit cum sue toto. That part is bad which accords not with its whole. Plowd. 161. TURPITUDE (Lat. turpitudo, from tur- 'pis, base). Everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals is said to be done with turpitude. TURPITUDO (Lat.) Turpitude.

A road or highway over which the public have the right to travel upon payment of toll, and on which the parties entitled to such toll have the right to erect gates and bars to insure its payment. 6 M. & W. 428; Maysville & Mt. S. Turnp. Co. v. Ratliff, 85 Ky. 244, 3 S. W. 148. A turnpike-road is a public highway; Pittsburgh, M. & Y. R. Co. v. Com., 104 Pa. 583; Lexington & O. R. Co. v. Applegate, 8 Dana (Ky.) 289, 33 Am. Dec. 497; and the obstructing of it is a public nuisance; Com. v. Wilkinson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 175, 20 Am. Dec. 654; and the posting of a notice that the company could not profitably keep up the road and unless it was bought by the county it would be closed up as private property, was held to be in effect an abandonment of the road and it became a public highway; Craig v. People, 47 III. 487. Turnpike-roads are usually made by corporations under legislative authority; and, the roads being deemed a public use, such corporations are usually armed with the power to take private property for their construction. The title to the soil remains in the owners of the adjoining land; Wright v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 76; and, after the franchise for the construction of the turnpike has expired, the road reverts to the public; Pittsburgh, M. & Y. R. Co. v. Com., 104 Pa. 583; State v. Toll-Road Co., 10 Nev. 155. The legislature may authorize the conversion of an existing highway into a turnpike-road; Sherwood v. Weston, 18 Conn. 32; without any pecuniary equivalent to the owner of the fee, such road still remaining a public highway; Chagrin, F. & C. P. R. Co. v. Cane, 2 Ohio St. 419; but no matter how bad the condition of a public road, its condition is no justification to a turnpike company for taking it as the line of a turnpike; Groff’s Appeal, 128 Pa. 621, 18 Atl. 431. A turnpike-road being a highway, any obstruction placed tliereon renders the author of it liable as for a public nuisance; Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 175, 26 Am. Dec. 654; Estes v. Kelsey, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 555. A turnpike company cannot be deprived of its road or its franchise by the extension of the limits of a municipal corporation to include the road; Fort Wayne L. & I. Co. v. Road Co., 132 Ind. 80, 30 N. E. 880, 15 L. R. A. 651. It is held that municipal authorities may require the grade of a turnpike within its limits to be changed to eon* form to that of a street; Borough of Charnbersburg v. Manko, 39 N. J. L. 500; and the municipality may require the turnpike to be kept in repair, but the city is not liable for a failure to do so; State v. New Brunswick, turnpike company; Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 175, 17 L. Ed. 520; Douglas v. Chatham, 41 Conn. 211. A statute attempting to authorize a court, without a jury, to declare a turnpike-road abandoned and its franchise forfeited because the road has been out of repair for six months, violates the constitutional guaranty of trial by jury and against the deprivation of property without due process of law; Salt Creek Turnp. Co. v. Parks, 50 Ohio St. 5GS, 35 N. E. 304, 28 L. R. A. 709. Turnpike companies, so long as they continue to take toll, are hound to use ordinary care in keeping their roads in suitable repair, and lor any neglect of this duty are liable to action on the case for the damages to any person especially injured thereby; Townsend v. Turnpike Co., G Johns. (N. Y.) 90; Pomeroy v. Turnpike Corp., 10 Pick. (Mass.) 35; and to an indictment on the part of the public; State v. Patton, 2G N. C. 16; Moore v. State, 26 Ala. 88; Com. v. Bridge Corp., 2 Gray (Mass.) 58. Travelers are liable fof v toll though they avoid the gates; Fitcli v. Lothrop, 2 Root (Conn.) 524; Centre Turnpike Co. v. Vandusen, 10 Vt. 197; but not for travel between the gates without passing the same; Elliott, Roads 70; Lexington & G. T. Rd. Co. v. Redd, 2 B. Monr. (Ky.) 30; Buncombe Turnpike Co. v. Mills, 32 N. C. 30; but where the traveler entered upon the turnpike and traveled thereon and when near a toll gate, turned out upon a public highway and thereby passed the toll gate without paying toll, but did not enter again upon the turnpike, he was not liable under a statute for fraudulent evasion of tolls, although he may have had such intention; Centre Turnpike Co. v. Vandusen, 10 Vt. 197. In an action by a company to enforce the statutory penalty for illegally passing its tollgate, it is no defense that the road was not in good condition; Canal St. Gravel-Road Co. v. Paas, 95 Mich. 372, 54 N. W. 907. Exemptions from toll are construed most liberally in favor of the community; Ang. High. § 359; and are usually created by special statute in relation to different kinds of vehicles; Mahon v. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 658; going to or from mills;. Bates v. Sutherland, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 510; in favor of husbandry; Camden, E. & M. T. Co. v. Fowler, 24 N. J. L. 205; going to church; 2 B. & Aid. 206; ordinary domestic business of family concerns; Centre Turnp. Co. v. Smith, 12 Vt. 212. Mail coaches are subject to toll, but may not be delayed for non-payment; Hopkins v. Stockton, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 163. A turnpike company authorized to collect toll from designated carriages, etc., may collect toll from bicycles, although the amount of toll cannot be exactly determined by the