Storer v. Haskell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit under s. 32, c. 94, Gen. Sts., for money alleged to have been paid for intoxicating liquor sold in violation of law. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, December Term, 1876, Caledonia County, Ross, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit under s. 32, c. 94, Gen. Sts., for money alleged to have been paid for intoxicating liquor sold in violation of law. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, December Term, 1876, Caledonia County, Ross, J., presiding. It appeared without contradiction, that on May 18, 1874, the defendant, who was then the keeper of a drug store in the village of St. Johnsbury, but not an authorized agent for the sale of intoxicating liquor, sold to the plaintiff, who was also not such agent, his business and his stock in trade, including “ liquors, porter, and ale,” for about $3,800, reserving a…
1Opinion of the Court
*344The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dunton, J.
The statute under which this suit was brought, s. 32, c. 94, of the Gen. Sts., provides that all payments for liquor sold contrary to law, shall be held and considered to have been received in violation of law, and may, in an appropriate action, be recovered back. Although the liquors in question were illegally sold, there is nothing in the case to show how much, if anything, was paid, for them. It would hardly do to assume that the plaintiff paid, or agreed to pay, their value. The section of the act under which this suit was brought, is in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bancroft v. DumasSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
- Buckmaster v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Town of Hinesburgh v. SumnerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
- Woodruff v. HinmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
- McNamee v. BuckSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. BarnettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1939