From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lynch v. Stott

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Dec 1, 1891
67 N.H. 589 (N.H. 1891)

Opinion

Decided December, 1891.

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.


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

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


Summaries of

Lynch v. Stott

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Dec 1, 1891
67 N.H. 589 (N.H. 1891)
Case details for

Lynch v. Stott

Case Details

Full title:LYNCH v. STOTT a

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham

Date published: Dec 1, 1891

Citations

67 N.H. 589 (N.H. 1891)
30 A. 420

Citing Cases

Chickering c. Co. v. Jackson

It is enough, in so far as that agreement is concerned, to say they have not installed the piano. In fact so…

Brent v. Chas. H. Lilly Co.

728; Rhode Island Locomotive Works v. South Eastern R. Co., 31 L.C.Jur. 86; G. A. Gray Co. v. Taylor Bros.…