State v. Intoxicating Liquors
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report of facts agreed, upon an appeal from trial justice to superior court. The opinion states the material facts. At the time of the seizure the claimant had no right to the .liquor. K. S., c. 27, § 37. The contract of sale must be regarded as made in Massachusetts, as it was by letter from Winthrop to Boston.
Read the full summary
On report of facts agreed, upon an appeal from trial justice to superior court. The opinion states the material facts. At the time of the seizure the claimant had no right to the .liquor. K. S., c. 27, § 37. The contract of sale must be regarded as made in Massachusetts, as it was by letter from Winthrop to Boston. Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374; McIntyre v. Parks, 3 Met. 207; Orcutt v. Kelson, 1 Gray, 536 ; Kline v. Baker, 99 Mass. 253 ; Jordan v. Dobbins, 122 Mass. 168. By the law of Massachusetts the sale being for cash on delivery the title .was in the vendors until payment. Stone v.…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
The claimant sent an order to a firm in Boston for whiskey, to be forwarded to him by express, C. O. D. The whiskey was sent, as ordered, to the town of Winthrop in this-•state. Immediately upon its arrival, before the claimant could *279get it, the package was seized as liable to confiscation under the liquor act. Immediately after the seizure, the claimant tendered the charges to the express company, and demanded the package, both of the express company and of the officer. It is not now claimed that the liquor was for any reason liable to confiscation, and it is withheld by the government for.…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Crabb v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
- Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Hull Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- City of Carthage v. DuvallIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
- State v. RosenbergerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- State v. McAdamsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1901
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.