Lynch v. Stott
Lynch v. Stott & A.
Lynch v. Stott, 30 A. 420 (N.H. 1891)
Summary
Assumpsit, to recover the price of four barrels of rum. Facts agreed. An order for one barrel of rum was solicited and taken in December, 1888, and for another barrel in February, 1889, at the defendants’ place of business in Portsmouth, by the plaintiff’s travelling salesman, and by him carried to the plaintiff’s place of business in Boston. Orders for the other two barrels were sent by the defendants, one in January and the other in March, 1889, to the plaintiff in Boston. The liquor was shipped to the defendants at the dates named from the plaintiff’s store in Boston by express, and delivered to the defendants at Portsmouth in the same packages it was in when shipped, the express charges being paid by the defendants. The plaintiff had a license to sell intoxicating liquors in Boston.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.
The plaintiff is entitled to judgment.
Durkee v. Moses, ante, p.
115.
Blodgett, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.