W.T. Rawleigh Company v. Rutkowski
| Decision Date | 02 July 1926 |
| Docket Number | 25,381 |
| Parties | W.T. RAWLEIGH COMPANY v. PETER W. RUTKOWSKI AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Roseau county, to recover balance of account on goods sold and delivered. Defendants appealed from an order, Watts, J., denying their motion for a new trial after verdict in favor of plaintiff. Affirmed.
Plaintiff entitled to directed verdict for admitted balance due.
1. The evidence fails to show that the flavoring extracts and patent medicines sold by plaintiff to be peddled by one of the defendants, even though containing a high percentage of alcohol, were not manufactured and sold lawfully, hence plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict for the admitted balance due.
Refusal to submit counterclaim to jury was correct.
2. The court did not err in refusing to submit to the jury a counterclaim growing out of the conviction of defendant for selling these extracts for beverage purposes.
G Halvorson, for appellants.
M. J. Hegland, for respondent.
Defendants appeal from the order denying their motion for a new trial, there having been a verdict for plaintiff.
The action was to recover the balance of an account for goods sold and delivered to defendant Peter W. Rutkowski, the two other defendants being his guarantors. The amount sued for is conceded correct and the guaranty is admitted. The answers of the guarantors and of the principal debtor seek to set up a defense that the goods sold and delivered were intoxicating liquors and were sold in violation of the Federal and state prohibition laws. The defendant Peter W. Rutkowski also counterclaims for damages sustained from being convicted, fined and imprisoned on the charge of selling intoxicants in vending the goods bought of plaintiff. The court refused to submit the counterclaim to the jury. This ruling presents about the only question on the appeal, for the two exhibits, to the exclusion of which the assignments of error 1 and 2 are directed, were later received in evidence (p. 53 of the record), and the error assigned upon the court's definition of intoxicating liquor is of no consequence, since it could not materially affect the result.
The undisputed facts are these: Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in manufacturing soaps, toilet articles, extracts for household use, liniments and patent medicines, which it sells to persons who undertake to peddle the same in allotted territory. Plaintiff does a business very similar to the well-known Watkin's Medical Company in this state. Flavoring extracts of lemon, orange, vanilla, etc., are put up in bottles plainly labeled, showing alcoholic contents of from 4 up to 80 per cent. The prohibition laws both Federal and state provide for the use of alcohol as a solvent for extracts for "medicinal, pharmaceutical, scientific or industrial purposes." The National Prohibition Act, § 4 of title 2, contains an enumeration of articles not inhibited though containing alcohol, if unfit for beverage purposes. Among those so allowed to be manufactured under permit are flavoring extracts. If lawfully manufactured, of course they may be sold for the purposes intended, which however excludes the use or sale thereof as beverages. Congress has covered the manufacture and sale of the articles involved in the dealings between plaintiff and defendants by regulations effective on and after May 1, 1924. Article 8, §§ 800-890. (McFadden, Prohibition, pp. 777-791).
It is not alleged nor is there any intimation in the evidence that plaintiff did not lawfully manufacture and compound the articles it sold to the defendant Peter W. Rutkowski, or that the flavoring extracts and patent medicines contained more alcohol than...
To continue reading
Request your trial