Case ID: nh_67/html/0589-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lynch v. Stott & a.
    
    Assumpsit, to recover the price of four barrels of rum. Facts agreed. An order for one barrel of rum was solicited and taken in December, 1888, and for another barrel in February, 1889, at the defendants’ place of business in Portsmouth, by the plaintiff’s travelling salesman, and by him carried to the plaintiff’s place of business in Boston. Orders for the other two barrels were sent by the defendants, one in January and the other in March, 1889, to the plaintiff in Boston. The liquor was shipped to the defendants at the dates named from the plaintiff’s store in Boston by express, and delivered to the defendants at Portsmouth in the same packages it was in when shipped, the express charges being paid by the defendants. The plaintiff had a license to sell intoxicating liquors in Boston.
    
      Calvin Page, for the plaintiff.
    
      C. E. Batchelder, for J. W. Stott.
    
      Samuel W. Emery, for George Stott.
   Smith, J.

The plaintiff is entitled to judgment. Durkee v. Moses, ante, p. 115.

Blodgett, J., did not sit: the others concurred.