Knowlton v. Dohery

• Decision Date: 07 May 1895
• Citation: 33 A. 18,87 Me. 518
• Parties: KNOWLTON v. DOHERY.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

33 A. 18

87 Me. 518

KNOWLTON

v. DOHERY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 7, 1895.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Waldo county.

Action in assumpsit by Joseph E. Doherty against Clarence M. Knowlton, on account, to recover the price of intoxicating liquors. There was judgment for plaintiff by default, and defendant was granted a review on petition. Heard on report Judgment for plaintiff in review.

W. P. Thompson, for plaintiff.

R. W. Rogers, for defendant.

WISWELL, J. This case comes to the law court upon report, the court to render such judgment as the legal rights of the parties may require. The plaintiff in the original action recovered judgment upon default for $382.37, debt and costs. The action was upon an account annexed, amounting to $330.38 for intoxicating liquors sold by the original plaintiff to the defendant, and $3 for packing.

The plaintiff in review relies upon Rev. St. c. 27, § 56, which, so far as it is material, is as follows: "No action shall be maintained upon any claim or demand, promissory note, or other security contracted or given for intoxicating liquors sold in violation of this chapter, or for any such liquors purchased out of the state with intention to sell the same or any part thereof in violation thereof."

In answer to which the defendant in review says that the sale of intoxicating liquors was not made in this state, and that consequently the statute does not apply. It may be conceded that the sale was made in Massachusetts. An agent of the vendor took the purchaser's order in Belfast, but there was no payment, no memorandum in writing, and the order was filled in Boston, where the liquors were separated from the general stock, packed, marked, and delivered to a steamboat company, in accordance with the purchaser's instructions, directed to him.

We find from the evidence that the liquors were bought with an intention upon the part of the purchaser to sell them in this state in violation of lave, and that the vendor, through his agent, had actual knowledge of such intention, but that he had no participation in the same, and did nothing, beyond the mere sale, to assist or facilitate the illegal act. The question, then, is presented, whether, under the statutes in this state, a vendor who makes a sale of intoxicating liquors in another state, where such sale is not prohibited, under the circumstances above stated, can recover the purchase price therefor in the courts of our state.

It is a general principle of law that the validity of a contract must be tested by the law of the place where the sale is made. Were it not for the statute, which expressly forbids the maintenance of such an action, the price could be recovered, such a sale not being invalid, even if the vendor knew that the purchaser intended to put the things sold to an illegal use, unless he participated in that intention, or in some way, beyond the mere sale, did something to assist or facilitate the violation of law, or, at least, in the language of some of the cases, made the sale with the knowledge that the thing sold was to be resold by the purchaser in another state, contrary to its laws, and with a view to such resale. Webster v. Munger, 8 Gray, 584; Graves v. Johnson, 156 Mass. 211, 30 N. E. 818.

The distinction between selling a thing with the mere knowledge that it is to be resold in violation of law, and in any way aiding in such illegal act, is sound and...