Ben-Burk, Inc. v. Bernstein & Kursman, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1940 |
| Citation | 12 A.2d 549,126 Conn. 503 |
| Parties | BEN-BURK, Inc., v. BERNSTEIN & KURSMAN, Inc. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John A. Cornell Judge.
Action by Ben-Burk, Inc., against Bernstein & Kursman, Inc., to recover balance due for liquor sold to the defendant, brought to the superior court. A demurrer to the defendant's answer and counterclaim was sustained in part and overruled in part, and the issues were tried to the court. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
No error.
Harry Kursman, of Bridgeport, for appellant.
Margaret E. Connors and Arthur B. Weiss, both of Bridgeport for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.
The complaint in this action sought the recovery of a balance due for liquors sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The assignments of error are addressed to the sustaining of a demurrer to the third defense to the complaint, to the finding, to the conclusions of the trial court and the overruling of the defendant's claims of law.
The plaintiff was a Massachusetts corporation and in its dealings with the defendant was engaged in interstate commerce. The defendant was a Connecticut corporation located in Bridgeport licensed by the United States was the state of Connecticut to conduct a wholesale liquor business along with its other wholesale business. The allegations of the third defense were to the effect that the plaintiff, being engaged in interstate commerce, engaged in unfair competition and unlawful practices in that it offered and gave to employees of the defendant, as stimulants for the sale of plaintiff's products, bonuses, premiums, and other extra compensations, that this practice tended to destroy the business of the defendant with other sellers in interstate commerce and was in violation of the liquor laws of the United States, Massachusetts and Connecticut. The plaintiff being a Massachusetts corporation and the sales in question being made there we are concerned only with the federal and Massachusetts rules. Kranke v. American Fabrics Co., 112 Conn. 58, 63, 151 A. 312; National Surety Co. v. Nazzaro, 239 Mass. 341, 346, 132 N.E. 49. The Massachusetts regulations forbid the giving of money or any other thing of substantial value to induce the purchase of any particular brand of alocholic beverage. Regulations of the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, §§ 18, 47 (pursuant to Acts of Extra Session, 1933, Chapter 376). The Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 27 U.S.C.A. §§ 205(c), 207, forbids the giving of any bonus, premium or compensation to any trade buyer to restrain or prevent transactions in liquor in interstate commerce. Both regulations carry a penalty for their violation.
The courts will not grant relief if the proof of an illegal contract is necessary to support the action or the purpose of the contract is to violate the law. Vaszauskas v. Vaszauskas, 115 Conn. 418, 423, 161 A. 856; Tator v. Valden, 124 Conn. 96, 102, 198 A. 169, 117 A.L.R 1243. Here, however, for all that appears in the allegations of the defense, the perfectly legal sale which was the basis of the plaintiff's claim and its methods of pushing its products were separate and distinct transactions. While the latter may have exposed it to a penalty, its indulgence in those practices is no defense to a suit for goods sold and delivered. It was so held in American Distilling Co. v. Wisconsin Liquor Co., 7 Cir., 104 F.2d 582, 585, 123...
To continue reading
Request your trial