Commonwealth v. Proctor

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Proctor

42 N.E. 335, 165 Mass. 38, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 12

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 N.E. 335 (Commonwealth v. Proctor) 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. Proctor, 42 N.E. 335, 165 Mass. 38, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 12 (Mass. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Field, C. J.

This was a complaint under St. 1886, c. 318, § 2, and the rulings of the Superior Court were right unless St. 1894, c. 425, has changed the law applicable to the case. Commonwealth v. Vieth, 155 Mass. 442.

It is the general rule of law that the possession of a servant is the possession of the master. In the present case, we think that the evidence showed that the milk was still in the possession and under the control of the defendant. St. 1894, c. 425, we think, was designed to exempt a producer of milk from prosecution on a complaint that the milk was not of good standard quality only when the milk was found on other premises than those of the producer or in the possession of another person than the producer who was not subject to the control of the producer and who therefore might have adulterated the milk for his own purposes, or when the milk, if found upon the premises or in [40]*40the possession or under the control of the producer, was taken by some person who was not an inspector of milk, or an agent of the dairy bureau or State board of health or a collector of samples duly authorized by an inspector, and who therefore might not be trustworthy. In every case of a taking of milk a sealed sample of the milk taken must be given to the producer for his protection. There is no indication that the general law governing the responsibility of a master for the acts of his servont was intended to be affected by the statute.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Field, C. J.

This was a complaint under St. 1886, c. 318, § 2, and the rulings of the Superior Court were right unless St. 1894, c. 425, has changed the law applicable to the case. Commonwealth v. Vieth, 155 Mass. 442.

It is the general rule of law that the possession of a servant is the possession of the master. In the present case, we think that the evidence showed that the milk was still in the possession and under the control of the defendant. St. 1894, c. 425, we think, was designed to exempt a producer of milk from prosecution on a complaint that the milk was not of good standard quality only when the milk was found on other premises than those of the producer or in the possession of another person than the producer who was not subject to the control of the producer and who therefore might have adulterated the milk for his own purposes, or when the milk, if found upon the premises or in [40]*40the possession or under the control of the producer, was taken by some person who was not an inspector of milk, or an agent of the dairy bureau or State board of health or a collector of samples duly authorized by an inspector, and who therefore might not be trustworthy. In every case of a taking of milk a sealed sample of the milk taken must be given to the producer for his protection. There is no indication that the general law governing the responsibility of a master for the acts of his servont was intended to be affected by the statute.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.E. 335, 165 Mass. 38, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-proctor-mass-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack