Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Smith

28 N.E. 1130, 155 Mass. 100, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 28
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 30, 1891·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Allen, J.

Upon the agreed facts, the sales to the defendant were completed in New Hampshire, by the delivery to the carrier there. Orcutt v. Nelson, 1 Gray, 536. Frank v. Hoey, 128 Mass. 263. The validity of the sales must, therefore, be determined by the laws of that State. Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374. The sales were made in Portsmouth. Under the statutes of New Hampshire, which were referred to, sales of ale were unlawful only in towns which had passed a vote to that effect. Gen. Laws of N. H. of 1878, c. 109, §§ 15, 19. There is nothing to show that such a vote had been passed in Portsmouth. Prima facie, the sales were legal. The burden of proof was on the defendant to show that they were illegal. Trott v. Irish, 1 Allen, 481. Wilson v. Melvin, 13 Gray, 73. Brigham v. Potter, 14 Gray, 522. There was no proof, and there is no presumption, of illegality; therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Smith, 28 N.E. 1130, 155 Mass. 100, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 28 (Mass. 1891).

28 N.E. 1130 (Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brent v. Chas. H. Lilly Co.
202 F. 335 (W.D. Washington, 1913)
Theo Hamm Brewing Co. v. Young
79 N.W. 111 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1899)
John F. Betz & Son v. McMorrow
52 N.E. 1069 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)