Botelor v. Corporation of Washington

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Botelor v. Corporation of Washington

3 F. Cas. 962, 2 D.C. 676, 2 Cranch 676

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedMay 15, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 3 F. Cas. 962 (Botelor v. Corporation of Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Botelor v. Corporation of Washington, 3 F. Cas. 962, 2 D.C. 676, 2 Cranch 676 (circtddc 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

(Morsell, J., absent,)

decided that rye-éhop (which was food for horses,) was not “ provision ” nor an “ article of food ” within the meaning of the by-law. (Burch’s Digest, p. 119, art. 9.) And that “ coming to market” meant, on its way to the market-place, with intent to be there offered for sale, in [677]*677market hours; and that it was not necessary that there should be a market actually bolding at the time of the purchase, in order to constitute the offence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Court

(Morsell, J., absent,)

decided that rye-éhop (which was food for horses,) was not “ provision ” nor an “ article of food ” within the meaning of the by-law. (Burch’s Digest, p. 119, art. 9.) And that “ coming to market” meant, on its way to the market-place, with intent to be there offered for sale, in [677]*677market hours; and that it was not necessary that there should be a market actually bolding at the time of the purchase, in order to constitute the offence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 F. Cas. 962, 2 D.C. 676, 2 Cranch 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/botelor-v-corporation-of-washington-circtddc-1826.