Chambers v. Adams Express Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Chambers v. Adams Express Co.

103 N.W. 152, 128 Iowa 154

DecidedApril 12, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 103 N.W. 152 (Chambers v. Adams Express Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chambers v. Adams Express Co., 103 N.W. 152, 128 Iowa 154 (iowa 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the defendant because of alleged unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to her husband. The proof offered to establish the alleged sales tended to show that the defendant was a common carrier, and as such transported the liquors in question from dealers in the State of Nebraska, and delivered the same to plaintiff’s' husband in this State upon payment by him of the bill of charges, accompanying the shipment. In other words, the transactions were what is commonly known as u C. O. H.” sales of intoxicants by nonresident dealers to residentpurchasers, and carried into effect through the agency of the common carrier. Under the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in the recent case of Adams Express Company v. Iowa, 25 Sup. Ct. 185, 49 L. Ed. — , the State is powerless to protect itself or enforce its statutes against traffic of this nature.

The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the defendant because of alleged unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to her husband. The proof offered to establish the alleged sales tended to show that the defendant was a common carrier, and as such transported the liquors in question from dealers in the State of Nebraska, and delivered the same to plaintiff’s' husband in this State upon payment by him of the bill of charges, accompanying the shipment. In other words, the transactions were what is commonly known as u C. O. H.” sales of intoxicants by nonresident dealers to residentpurchasers, and carried into effect through the agency of the common carrier. Under the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in the recent case of Adams Express Company v. Iowa, 25 Sup. Ct. 185, 49 L. Ed. — , the State is powerless to protect itself or enforce its statutes against traffic of this nature.

The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 N.W. 152, 128 Iowa 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-adams-express-co-iowa-1905.