Preston v. Drew
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Report from Nisi Prius, Howard, 3. presiding. Replevin for eight barrels of ram and for the casks, in which it was contained. Plea, non cepit, with brief statement, justifying the taking by the defendant, as an officer, under a warrant, issued by virtue of the statute of 1861, chap. 211, “for the suppression of drinking-houses and tippling-shops.” The plaintiffs reside in Massachusetts.
Read the full summary
On Report from Nisi Prius, Howard, 3. presiding. Replevin for eight barrels of ram and for the casks, in which it was contained. Plea, non cepit, with brief statement, justifying the taking by the defendant, as an officer, under a warrant, issued by virtue of the statute of 1861, chap. 211, “for the suppression of drinking-houses and tippling-shops.” The plaintiffs reside in Massachusetts. The rum was sent by them to Brunswick, in this county, where it was stored for safe keeping, and it was there seized by the defendant. One of the enactments of the statute is, that “ No action of any kind…
1Opinion of the CourtSiiepley, C. J.
— The action is replevin of eight barrels of rum. A nonsuit was ordered, pro forma, by the presiding *560Judge, that the question might be presented for deliberative consideration, whether the action can be maintained.
There is no proof presented by the report of the case, that the rum was liable to seizure and forfeiture, or that there was any intention to sell it, in violation of any law of the State.
If the action can be sustained, it must be maintained “ for the recovery or possession of intoxicating or spirituous liquors.”
It is provided by the sixteenth section of the Act approved on June 21,…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Delaney v. PlunkettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1917
- Waite v. Utah Labor Comm'nUtah Supreme Court · 2017
- Barbour v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1917
- Ex parte FrancisSupreme Court of Florida · 1918
- Blunk v. WaughSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.