Samuel Bowman Distilling Co. v. Nutt
Decision Date | 05 March 1886 |
Citation | 10 P. 163,34 Kan. 724 |
Parties | SAMUEL BOWMAN DISTILLING COMPANY, a Corporation, v. A. R. NUTT |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Atchison District Court.
ACTION brought by The Samuel Bowman Distilling Company, a corporation, against A. R. Nutt, before a justice of the peace of Atchison county, Kansas, to recover $ 113.42, for intoxicating liquors sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. With the plaintiff's bill of particulars it filed two exhibits, as follows:
EXHIBIT A.
No 22.--ATCHISON, Mch. 9, 1883.--Bowman Distilling Company, St Louis, Mo.: We have this day ordered through your Mr Schullman, following goods, to be shipped by Missouri Pacific at lowest rates:
1 B. Millwood, Spring 81
$ 1 75
5 G. Sweet Catawba
1 00
10 G. Cal. Riesling
1 25
12 Oporto Wine
1 90
Which please forward to us, and for which we agree to accept draft at 90 days from date of shipment.
Yours respectfully, A. R. NUTT.
EXHIBIT B.
ST. LOUIS, Mch. 13, 1883.--A. R. Nutt, Atchison, Kan., bought of Bowman Distilling Company, ninety days, or 3 per cent. off if paid within 10 days:
1 brl. Millwood, Spring 81, 40 1/2 galls., $ 1.75
$ 70 87
1 keg, .75, Sweet Catawba, 5 galls., at $ 1
5 75
1 keg, $ 1, Cal. Riesling, 10 galls., $ 1.25
1/10 cask Oporto Port, 12 galls., $ 1.90
Cartage
50
$ 113 42
A trial was had before the justice of the peace, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and the defendant appealed to the district court. At the February Term, 1884, a trial was had before the district court, without a jury, and the court made the following findings and conclusions, to wit:
Upon these findings and conclusions the court below rendered judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff for costs, and to reverse this judgment the plaintiff brings the case to this court.
Judgment reversed.
Jackson & Royse, for plaintiff in error.
Tomlinson & Eaton, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This was an action brought in Atchison county, by the Samuel Bowman Distilling Company, a corporation, against A. R. Nutt, for intoxicating liquors previously sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff is a wholesale liquor dealer at St. Louis, Missouri, and its sales there made of intoxicating liquors are legal and valid. The defendant is a saloon-keeper in Atchison, Kansas, and his sales there made of intoxicating liquors are illegal, and contrary to the statutes of Kansas. The liquors sold in the present case were first ordered by letter by the defendant at Atchison, Kansas, at the instance of the plaintiff's agent, who was then in Atchison and had knowledge of the kind of business in which the defendant was engaged, and presumably had knowledge also of the laws of Kansas, and therefore had knowledge that the defendant was engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors in violation of law, and that he desired to purchase the liquors in the present case for such unlawful purpose. The order of the defendant for the liquors was subject to the approval or disapproval of the plaintiff at St. Louis, Missouri. The plaintiff, however, approved the order, selected the liquors from its stock of liquors at St. Louis, Missouri, and then delivered the same to a railroad company, to be by it transported to the defendant at Atchison, Kansas, at the defendant's cost, and the defendant was to pay the plaintiff the value of such liquors at the end of 90 days, which time elapsed before this action was commenced, and the defendant had not then and has not since paid for such liquors. The defendant claims that the plaintiff sold the liquors to him knowing that he would again sell them in Kansas in violation of the laws of Kansas; and therefore he claims that the sale, though legal in Missouri, was illegal and void as to Kansas, and that the plaintiff cannot recover in Kansas anything from the defendant for the liquors sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant.
The plaintiff constructively had knowledge, in Missouri, through the actual knowledge of its agent, in Kansas, that the defendant purchased the liquors for the purpose of unlawfully selling the same in Kansas; but there is no pretense that the plaintiff in any manner participated in this unlawful purpose, and no pretense that it was to derive any benefit from any of the illegal acts perpetrated, or intended to be perpetrated, by the defendant in Kansas. So far as appears from the record, the plaintiff sold these liquors in the same manner and for the same prices as it sells like liquors to its other customers, who purchase the same for lawful and legitimate sale or use. Nor did the plaintiff pack the liquors in such a manner as to conceal their real character or pack them in any manner different from the manner in which it packs like goods for its other customers, who purchase for lawful and legitimate purposes. So far as anything is shown in the record, it sold the goods for the same prices and packed them in the same manner that it would sell and pack like goods sold to legitimate druggists in Kansas, who have...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frankel v. Hillier
... ... cited are too numerous to refer to in this opinion, but see ... Bowman Distilling Co. v. Nutt, 34 Kan. 724, 10 P ... 163; Banchor v. Mansel, 47 ... ...
-
Pabst Brewing Co. v. Smith
... ... v ... Sachs, 33 Kan. 621, 7 P. 222, 52 Am. Rep. 547; ... Bowman Distilling Co. v. Nutt, 34 Kan. 724, 10 P ... 163; Westheimer v ... ...
-
Pabst Brewing Co. v. Smith
...will not aid the recovery of the price thereof. Feineman et al. v. Sachs, 33 Kan. 621, 7 P. 222, 52 Am. Rep. 547; Bowman Distilling Co. v. Nutt, 34 Kan. 724, 10 P. 163; Westheimer v. Weisman, 60 Kan. 753, 57 P. 969; Corbin v. Houlehan, 100 Me. 246, 61 A. 131, 70 L.R.A. 568; Taber v. Barton,......
-
Sondheim v. Gilbert
... ... 72] Mitchell, J ... This ... was a suit by Samuel and Henry P. Sondheim, partners doing ... business under the firm name of ... note; Feineman v. Sachs, 33 Kan. 621, 7 P ... 222; Distilling Co. v. Nutt, 34 Kan. 724, ... 10 P. 163; Fisher v. Lord, 63 N.H. 514, 3 ... ...