Suit v. Woodhall

• Decision Date: 09 January 1875
• Citation: 116 Mass. 547
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Samuel T. Suit & another v. Samuel Woodhall

116 Mass. 547

Samuel T. Suit & another v. Samuel Woodhall

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 9, 1875

Argued November 4, 1874

Essex. Contract on an account annexed, the first item of which was for certain whiskey sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant on June 17, 1874; the second item being for casings sold the same day. The answer first set up the defendant's ignorance as to whether the plaintiffs sold him the goods described in the account annexed, and left the plaintiffs to their proof. It then proceeded (omitting certain allegations as to the casings, which it is now unnecessary to state) as follows:

"If it shall be made to appear that the plaintiffs ever sold and delivered said items or either of them to the defendant, it will also appear that item numbered one was intoxicating liquors, and that item numbered two were the casings containing said liquors; all of which said liquors were sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant, in violation of the laws of this Commonwealth relating to spirituous and intoxicating liquors;" also that "if it shall appear that the plaintiffs ever sold and delivered said items or either of them to the defendant, it will also appear that item numbered one was intoxicating liquors, and that item numbered two were the casings, containing said liquors; all of which said liquors the plaintiffs sold to the defendant in another state for the purpose of being brought into this Commonwealth, to be here sold in violation of the liquor laws of this Commonwealth; and the plaintiffs at the time of said sale and delivery had reasonable cause to believe the defendant intended to sell the same within this Commonwealth contrary to the laws thereof."

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Lord, J., the plaintiffs called their clerk as a witness. Upon his cross-examination the defendant offered to prove that the liquors sued for were sold in another state by the plaintiffs to the defendant, for the purpose of being brought into this Commonwealth by the defendant, to be here sold in violation of the liquor laws of this Commonwealth; and that the plaintiffs had, at the time of said sale, reasonable cause to believe that the defendant intended to sell the same within this Commonwealth contrary to the laws thereof. But the judge excluded the evidence, and ruled that this defence was not open to the defendant under his answer; that the answer did not set forth in clear and precise terms the substantial facts recited in the answer but only inferentially that from some source and in some manner such facts would appear, and that an amendment stating the facts was necessary; but the defendant's counsel declined to ask leave to amend the answer in that respect. Whereupon the defendant submitted to a verdict for the plaintiffs, and alleged exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

E. T Burley, for the defendant.

C. G Saunders, for the plaintiffs.

Gray, C. J. Ames & Devens, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Gray, C. J.

It is the object of every system of pleading to bring the controversy to a precise and definite issue for trial. The common law required that in every plea material facts should be alleged directly and positively. Gould Pl. c. 3 § 49. Even under the St. of 1836, c. 273, which abolished special pleading, and required the general issue to be pleaded in all cases, with a specification of the matters intended to be given in evidence, it was held that such a specification must contain as distinct an allegation of...