Commonwealth v. Hugo

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Hugo

41 N.E. 123, 164 Mass. 157, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 203

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 21, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 41 N.E. 123 (Commonwealth v. Hugo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Hugo, 41 N.E. 123, 164 Mass. 157, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 203 (Mass. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, J.

The motions to quash and in arrest of judgment have been waived, and therefore need not be considered.

Notwithstanding the form of the orders, there was evidence on which the jury properly could find that the liquors were not delivered until they reached in Hyde Park the hands of those ordering them, and that until then they were at the risk of the defendant Hugo. The jury might have found that the express was owned by the defendant Hugo, and used and run by him as a means of delivering the liquors that were ordered of him; and that the defendants Hauck and Cody were his servants, and were paid by him to deliver the liquors. The jury might have found also that a delivery to the express was no more a delivery to a common carrier in the ordinary course, than would be a delivery to the parcel wagon run by a merchant in Boston to accommodate his customers in Boston and its suburbs. The case is settled by former decisions. Suit v. Woodhall, 113 Mass. 391. Commonwealth v. Greenfield, 121 Mass. 40. Commonwealth v. Burgett, 136 Mass. 450.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Morton, J.

The motions to quash and in arrest of judgment have been waived, and therefore need not be considered.

Notwithstanding the form of the orders, there was evidence on which the jury properly could find that the liquors were not delivered until they reached in Hyde Park the hands of those ordering them, and that until then they were at the risk of the defendant Hugo. The jury might have found that the express was owned by the defendant Hugo, and used and run by him as a means of delivering the liquors that were ordered of him; and that the defendants Hauck and Cody were his servants, and were paid by him to deliver the liquors. The jury might have found also that a delivery to the express was no more a delivery to a common carrier in the ordinary course, than would be a delivery to the parcel wagon run by a merchant in Boston to accommodate his customers in Boston and its suburbs. The case is settled by former decisions. Suit v. Woodhall, 113 Mass. 391. Commonwealth v. Greenfield, 121 Mass. 40. Commonwealth v. Burgett, 136 Mass. 450.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 N.E. 123, 164 Mass. 157, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-hugo-mass-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack