Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Smith

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Smith

28 N.E. 1130, 155 Mass. 100, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 28

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 28 N.E. 1130 (Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Smith) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.E. 1130, 155 Mass. 100, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portsmouth-brewing-co-v-smith-mass-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack