Inhabitants of Rumford v. Boston Grocery Co.
| Decision Date | 06 October 1913 |
| Citation | 88 A. 394,111 Me. 116 |
| Parties | INHABITANTS OF RUMFORD v. BOSTON GROCERY CO. et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Oxford County, at Law.
Action by the Inhabitants of Rumford against the Boston Grocery Company and others. Directed verdict for plaintiff, and defendants bring exceptions. Exceptions sustained, and judgment rendered for defendants.
Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and CORNISH, KING, BIRD, HALEY, and PHILBROOK, JJ.
James B. Stevenson, of Rumford, for plaintiff.
Albert Beliveau, of Rumford, for defendants.
SAVAGE, C. J. Debt on bond. On May 6, 1912, the defendant company was licensed by the municipal officers of Rumford to keep a pool room. By its terms, as well as by statute (R. S. ch. 31, § 4), the license was to expire May 1, 1913. The defendants gave the bond required by section 5 of the same chapter which is the bond in suit. The bond was conditioned that the licensee would not "permit gambling, * * * in or about the premises, or permit the pool room to be opened or used between 10 o'clock in the evening and sunrise."
The plaintiff claims that there were breaches of both of these conditions during the term of the license. The defendant company did not deny the facts which the plaintiff claims constituted the breaches, but contended, and offered evidence tending to show, that prior to the alleged breaches it had rented the pool room, pool tables, and paraphernalia connected therewith to one Cohen, and that after such renting it did not keep the pool room, and had no interest in the business, nor control or management of it. To this the plaintiff's reply is, first, that the renting or transfer to him was colorable only, and not bona fide; and, secondly, that, even if the renting to Cohen was real and bona fide, it did not relieve the defendants from liability for breaches of the bond during the entire period of the license, which ended May 1, 1913.
At the conclusion of the testimony, the presiding justice directed a verdict for the plaintiff, with a stipulation, agreed to by the parties, that if the law court should determine that the direction was erroneous, judgment should be rendered for the defendants. The defendants excepted.
If the renting to Cohen was colorable merely, and the defendant company afterwards continued to be the real proprietor of the pool room, keeping it under the license, the case shows indisputably that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, and that the verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. City of Sheridan
...deemed proper. (25 Cyc. 622.) The requirement of a bond in connection with a license is usual, customary and reasonable. (Rumford v. Grocery Co., 88 A. 394.) ordinance is not to be held unreasonable unless clearly so and every intendment will be indulged in its favor. (Harter v. Barkley, 11......
-
Superior Piston Ring Co. v. Brown, Anthony & Co.
...220 N.W. 752;United States v. Smith, 8 Wall., U.S., 587, 19 L.Ed. 506;Spiegler v. Chicago, 216 Ill. 114, 74 N.E. 718;Rumford v. Boston Grocery Co., 111 Me. 116, 88 A. 394;Lyman v. Cheever, 168 N.Y. 43, 60 N.E. 1047;Com. v. Foch Cereal Co., 302 Pa. 373, 153 A. 695; Adams v. State, 105 Tex. 3......
-
Cundiff v. Wills
...74 A.L.R. 1309; United States v. Smith, 8 Wall. 587, 19 L.Ed. 506; Spiegler v. Chicago, 216 Ill. 114, 74 N.E. 718; Rumford v. Boston Grocery Co., 111 Me. 116, 88 A. 394; Commonwealth v. Foch Cereal Co., 302 Pa. 373, 153 A. 695; Adams v. State, 105 Tex. 374, 150 S.W. 591; see also Mack v. Ma......
- Jordan v. Jordan's Trust Estate