Gaylord v. Soragen
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for the price of a quantity of liquor sold by th& plaintiff to the defendant. Plea, the general issue and trial by jury at the September Term, 1858, in Chittenden county, Bennett, J. presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for the price of a quantity of liquor sold by th& plaintiff to the defendant. Plea, the general issue and trial by jury at the September Term, 1858, in Chittenden county, Bennett, J. presiding. It appeared on trial that in January, 1857, the defendant, who resided and did his business at Burlington, in this State, purchased at Plattsburgh, New York, of the plaintiff, who dealt in liquors and resided in Plattsburgh, a quantity of intoxicating liquors, which he directed the plaintiff to put up and forward to him at Burlington ; and also requested him when he forwarded the liquor to…
1Opinion of the CourtAldis, J.
I. We think the decision of the court of appeals, reported in 3 Kernan 378, establishes the unconstitutionality of the 16th section of the act of the State of New York passed in 1855, for the prevention of intemperance. That section is obnoxious to the objections which were sufficient to induce the court to declare the act in other sections unconstitutional. The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was, therefore, valid by the laws of New York.
II. Mere knowledge by the vendor of goods selling them in a foreign State, that the vendee intends to use them in violation of the laws of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McConihe & Co. v. McMannSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
3Cited by24 opinions
- Aiken v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869
- Graves v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. MasonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Singleton v. Bank of MonticelloSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Standard Furniture Co. v. Van AlstineWashington Supreme Court · 1900
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.