Buxton v. Hamblen
32 Me. 448
Opinion
orally.—The sale of pressed hay unbranded, is a violation of the statute, and equally so, whether to be visited by a forfeiture of the article or by a pecuniary penalty. The statute though not in express terms, yet by unavoidable inference, prohibits every such sale.
This is a suit brought to recover against the defendant for not completing a sale, prohibited by law. Such a suit can never be maintained. Nonsuit confirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Buxton v. Hamblen, 32 Me. 448 (Me. 1851).
32 Me. 448 (Buxton v. Hamblen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lipman v. Thomas
61 A.2d 130 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1948)
Maurer v. Greening Nursery Co.
165 N.W. 861 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1917)
American Copying Co. v. Eureka Bazaar
108 N.W. 15 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1906)
Kothe v. Krag-Reynolds Co.
50 N.E. 594 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1898)
Washburn Mill Co. v. Bartlett
54 N.W. 544 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1893)
Wright v. Lee
51 N.W. 706 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1892)
Dudley v. Collier & Pinckard
87 Ala. 431 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)