Case ID: mass_81/html/0311-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Merrick, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Chauncey Holt vs. James O’Brien.
    If intoxicating liquors are illegally sold, with an agreement that the vessels containing them, which are sold at the same time, may be returned and the buyer credited with the price charged, no action lies to recover the price of the vessels not returned.
    Action of contract on an account annexed to recover the price of ale and intoxicating liquors, and of the barrels and vessels containing them, sold to the defendant.
    At the trial in the superior court of Suffolk at May term 1858, it appeared. by the report of an auditor and facts agreed by the parties that the ale when sold was in the barrels, and both were sold at the same time; that the other liquors were-sold by the gallon and drawn off from larger vessels, and that these liquors and the vessels in which they were put were also sold at the same time; and that it was understood that if any of the barrels or vessels were returned the defendant was to be credited the amount charged therefor in the account. Allen, C. J. ruled that the plaintiff could not recover, and directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
    
      J. Q. A. Griffin, for the plaintiff.
    
      A. B. Underwood, for the defendant.
   Merrick, J.

It appears from the report of the auditor and from the agreed statement of the parties, that the ale and barrels containing it charged in the plaintiff’s account were both sold by him at one and the same time; and that the other vessels thus charged were also sold at the same time when the other liquors, which were put into them, were bought by the gallon and ware drawn off from larger vessels. In each instance therefore there was but one transaction between the parties. It embraced different subjects, but there was only one contract The sale of the ale and liquors being illegal, this vitiated the entire contract. St. 1855, c. 215. 1 Parsons on Con. 381, note. The ruling of the court, that upon these fqcts the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, was therefore correct, and judgment must be entered on the verdict. Exceptions overruled.