Opinion
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, San Francisco County.
COUNSEL:
Cited Dwarris on Statutes, 702, 729; 4 Burr. 471; 5 Denio, 119; 6 How. Prac. R. 20.
Haights & Gary, for Appellant.
F. M. Pixley & John V. Wattson, for Respondent.
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 Sandf. 217.
JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.
OPINION
HEYDENFELDT, Judge
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 merchandise 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 cause remanded.