State v. Intoxicating Liquors
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions by claimant. Sustained. Three cases of search and seizure under the provisions of lievised Statutes, chapter 29, section 49, originating in the Lewiston Municipal Court, Androscoggin County. In each of these cases, certain intoxicating liquors wore seized and taken from the possession of the Tarbox Express Company, a common carrier, while alleged to be still in transit.
Read the full summary
On exceptions by claimant. Sustained. Three cases of search and seizure under the provisions of lievised Statutes, chapter 29, section 49, originating in the Lewiston Municipal Court, Androscoggin County. In each of these cases, certain intoxicating liquors wore seized and taken from the possession of the Tarbox Express Company, a common carrier, while alleged to be still in transit. The liquors seized had been transported by the Tarbox Express Company by continuous shipment from Boston Mass., to Lewiston, Maine. Under the provisions of section 48 of the aforesaid chapter, the seizures were…
1Opinion of the CourtSavage, J.
These are three cases of claims by a common carrier for intoxicating liquors seized and taken from its possession, while alleged still to be in transit, and within the protection of the interstate commerce provision of the Constitution of the United States. The liquors seized were properly libelled. The claimant appeared before the Municipal Court. Its claims were denied, the liquors in each ease adjudged forfeited, and the claimant appealed to the *390Supreme Judicial Court. After a hearing in that court the presiding Justice ruled in each case as a matter of law that the liquors should be…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Leisy v. HardinSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- In Re RahrerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Rhodes v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Jordan v. GainesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1939
- Graffam v. Casco Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1940
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Bolduc v. PinkhamSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1952
- Ouelette v. PageauSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1954
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.