Legal Opinion

Gill v. S. Kaufman & Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 15, 1876PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Frror from Cherokee District Court. Action on a note given by Gill to Kaufman & Co.' Answer, “that said note was given for intoxicating liquors sold within the state of Kansas, in violation of the dramshop act, (ch. 35 of Gen. Stat. of 1868,) and hence said note is void.” Trial at the January Term 1875, and judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $133.50, and Gill brings the case here on error. contended that the contract of sale was a Kansas contract.

Read the full summary

Frror from Cherokee District Court. Action on a note given by Gill to Kaufman & Co.' Answer, “that said note was given for intoxicating liquors sold within the state of Kansas, in violation of the dramshop act, (ch. 35 of Gen. Stat. of 1868,) and hence said note is void.” Trial at the January Term 1875, and judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $133.50, and Gill brings the case here on error. contended that the contract of sale was a Kansas contract. So long as the vendee continues to have the right, either to object to the quantum or quality of the goods, there is no executed sale or contract.…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Brewer, J.:

This was an action on a note. The defense was, that the note was given for liquors sold in this state without a license. Kaufman & Co. were wholesale liquor-merchants in Cincinnati, Ohio. The evidence shows that the goods were sold by sample, through the agent of defendants in error, and a portion of the samples left with Gill to compare when liquors arrived. Also, that Gill was to pay freight, and if liquors did not come up to standard that defendants in error were to refund freight-money and take liquors away. Did these facts change the…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Wind v. Iler & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1895
  2. State v. WillinghamWyoming Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Neal v. M. E. Smith & Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
  4. Wadhams v. BalfourOregon Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Reynolds v. PalmerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · 1884

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API