Case ID: mass_107/html/0121-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Colt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Margaret Bolduc vs. John N. Randall.
    An action cannot be maintained for the price of intoxicating liquors sold in the county of Suffolk without a license, while the St. of 1868, c. 141, was in force, although the seller, before the sale, petitioned for a license, and after the sale a license was granted to him, and at the time of the sale there were no commissioners who could grant licenses.
    Writ or review. The original action, in which the plaintiff in review was defaulted, was brought against her for the price of intoxicating liquors sold to her by the defendant in June 1868. Trial in the superior court, before Pitman, J., and verdict for the plaintiff in review. The defendant in review alleged exceptions. The case is stated in the opinion.
    
      I. 3. Wright, for the defendant in review.
    
      W. S. Knox, for the plaintiff in review.
   Colt, J.

The sales of liquor, for the price of which the original action was brought, were expressly forbidden by the statutes of this Commonwealth, unless made by one duly licensed by the commissioners of the county of Suffolk. St. of 1868, c. 141. The plaintiff in review proved that the seller was not licensed in fact till some time after the sales were made ; and there was no contest about the fact. The contract was therefore illegal, and cannot be enforced.

It is no answer to this, that a petition for a license had been filed by the defendant in review with the city authorities before the first sale was made. The license takes effect from its date. It cannot protect sales previously made. Nor does the fact that at the time of these sales no commissioners had been elected for the county of Suffolk render these sales valid. It is the seller’s misfortune that he could not comply with the only condition by which the sales could be made legally. By the provisions of the statute, all licenses are required to bear date of the day when issued, and expire on the first day of May. And although the seller in this instance paid the fee which is in all cases required, yet we cannot from this construe the statute as intending to legalize the sales of the whole year, without regard to the time when the license is issued. It must take effect from its date.

Exceptions overruled.