TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

St. Goddard v. Burnham

Mary St. Goddard v. Roswell S. Burnham

St. Goddard v. Burnham, 124 Mass. 578 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 29, 1878
Judges
Colt
Citations
124 Mass. 5781878 Mass. LEXIS 380
Cited by 6
Headnotes
Evidence that the defendant delivered intoxicating liqnor to a minor, which was ordered and paid for by a third person, although the minor stated what kind of liquor he wanted, will not support an action to recover the forfeiture provided by the St. of 1875, c. 99, § 15, for the sale of intoxicating liquor to a minor.
Summary
Tort to recover a forfeiture of $100 under the St. of 1875, <?. 99, § 15, for selling intoxicating liquor to the plaintiff’s minor son. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., it appeared that one Louis Bergen went into the defendant’s ■ barroom and there treated the minor with whiskey; that the minor did not buy or pay for the liquor; but that Bergen ordered and paid for all of it, the minor, however, stating what kind of liquor he wanted, and receiving the same directly from the hands of the bar-tender. The plaintiff contended that this transaction was within the provisions of the statute; but the judge ruled otherwise, directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, and, by consent of parties, reported the case for the determination of this court. If the ruling was correct, judgment was to be entered on the verdict; otherwise, a new trial to be ordered.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Colt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Colt, J.

It is provided in the St. of 1875, c. 99, § 15, that whoever, by himself or his agent, or servant, shall sell or give intoxicating liquor to any minor, shall forfeit a sum named for each offence. But the evidence in this case would not warrant the jury in finding that the liquor was either sold or given to the minor. The fact that the' liquor was called for and paid for by Bergen, and that the minor did not buy or pay for it, is not in dispute; the case expressly so finds. The plaintiff did not ask to go to the jury on that question; and the character of the transaction is not changed by the fact that the kind of liquor wanted was left to the choice. of the minor, or that it was received directly by him. A delivery to the minor did not make it a gift to him from the defendant. It was indeed a gift, but it was the gift of Bergen.

This action is brought under the provisions of § 15, and not under the provisions of § 6, cl. 4, and § 13, of the same chapter, which prohibit the sale or delivery of intoxicating liquor to a minor. And yet, under § 6, it has been decided that a sale or delivery to a minor for his parents’ use is not a sale to a minor. Commonwealth v. Lattinville, 120 Mass. 385 .

Judgment on the verdict.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1885–1886: 21887–1888: 11891–1892: 21923–1924: 118852026peak 1885 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. O'Connell v. O'Leary14 N.E. 143 (Mass. 1887)
  2. Commonwealth v. O'Leary8 N.E. 887 (Mass. 1886)
  3. Ward v. State45 Ark. 351 (1885)
  4. Randolph Marketing Co. v. Stevenson222 P. 849 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  5. Wallace v. State16 S.W. 571 (Ark. 1891)
  6. Yakel v. State17 S.W. 943 (Tex. App. 1891) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Randolph Marketing Co. v. Stevenson222 P. 849 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
  2. Yakel v. State17 S.W. 943 (Tex. App. 1891) · Dissent
  3. Wallace v. State16 S.W. 571 (Ark. 1891)
  4. O'Connell v. O'Leary14 N.E. 143 (Mass. 1887)
  5. Commonwealth v. O'Leary8 N.E. 887 (Mass. 1886)
  6. Ward v. State45 Ark. 351 (1885)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Commonwealth v. Lattinville, 120 Mass. 385 (1876) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list