Richards v. Columbia
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, tried before'Ladd, J., to recover a balance claimed to be due on an account for intoxicating liquors sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants in 1868. The liquors sold were embraced in three bills, the dates and amounts of which were as follows : (1) March 23, 1868, $530.28; (2) August 11, $273.76; (3) December 7, $71.26 — $875.30. The credits, including $50 discount on a barrel of alcohol, which is allowed by the court, were as follows: May 21,1868,…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, tried before'Ladd, J., to recover a balance claimed to be due on an account for intoxicating liquors sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants in 1868. The liquors sold were embraced in three bills, the dates and amounts of which were as follows : (1) March 23, 1868, $530.28; (2) August 11, $273.76; (3) December 7, $71.26 — $875.30. The credits, including $50 discount on a barrel of alcohol, which is allowed by the court, were as follows: May 21,1868, by cash, $80; July 3, $82; August 29, $75 ; October 9, $100 ; December 5, $160 ; February 15,1869, $110 ; April 15,…
1Concurrence
It is conceded that the sale of March 23, 1868, amounting to $530.28, was illegal, because the plaintiffs had not at that time a license to sell spirituous liquors. The question, then, how the plaintiffs applied the payments that were made to them by the defendants from time to time is not important, because they were bound by law to apply the money received by them first in payment of the valid items, irrespective of their order in their account. Any balance then remaining might be applied in payment for goods illegally sold. This was clearly settled in Hall v. Clement,41 N.H. 166, and is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hall v. ClementSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860
- Kidder v. NorrisSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1847