Majority
p. 418CHARLES QUIGLEY, Appellant, v WILLIAM R. GORHAM, Sheriff, Respondent. Cited Dwarris on Statutes, 702, 729. 4 Burr, 471. 5 Denio, 119 . 6 How. Prac. R., 20. Argued, that the statute should be construed liberally, and cited Wheeler v. Cropsey, 5 How. Pr. R., 288. Patten v. Smith, 4 Conn., 450 . 11 Illinois, 584. Lowler v. LeRoy, 2 Sanf., 217.
Headnote
The words of a statute must be interpreted according to their common acceptation.In the Act which exempts certain articles from execution, the term “wagon” is intended to mean a common vehicle for the transportation of goods, wares, and merchandize.
A hackney coach used for (he conveyance of passengers is a different article, and does not come within the equity or litoral meaning of the Act.
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, San Francisco County.
Haights & Gary, for Appellant.
F. M. Pixley and John V. Wattson, for Respondent.
Murray, C. J., concurred.
The words of a statute must be interpreted according to their common acceptation. In the Act which exempts certain articles from execution, the term “ wagon” is intended to mean a common vehicle for the transportation of goods, wares, and merchandize of all descriptions. A hackney coach used for the conveyance of passengers is a different article, and does not come within the equity or literal meaning of the Act.
Judgment reversed, and canse remanded;