such vendor knew of the illegal intention upon the part of the purchaser, or in any way participated in the same.

Knowlton vs. Doherty (Me.), 33 Atl. Rep. 18.

RECOVERY-WHERE VENDOR HAS KNOWLEDGE THAT THE LIQUOR WILL BE RESOLD CONTRARY TO LAW, HE CANNOT RECOVER.

Where intoxicating liquors are sold in Nebraska for the purpose of enabling the person to resell them, contrary to, or in violation of, the laws of this state, and the vendor has the knowledge of the illegal purpose of the buyer, and participates with him in the illegal traffic, the sale is void, and no recovery can be had for the purchase price of the liquors thus sold.

Storz vs. Finkelstein (Neb.), 66 N. W. Rep. 1020.

RECOVERY-ON

STATE.

CONTRACT MADE IN

NON-PROHIBITION

Judge Phillips of the Court of Appeals in Missouri decided at Kansas City a case of interest to the trade, the gist of which is that when a contract for liquor is made in a state in which there is no prohibition law, a dealer cannot evade payment because of such a law in the state in which he does business. The parties to the suit were M. W. Kerwin & Co. of Chicago against Patrick Doran of Ottumwa, Iowa, for a balance of $339 out of a total of $1,100. Doran pleaded the prohibitory act, but the plaintiffs seized on some of his property in Missouri.

The Judge decided that the contract had been made in Illinois, a state in which the Iowa statute had, of course, no jurisdiction. The fact that the vendors had knowledge that the vendee intended to make an unlawful use of the goods sold is not sufficient to invalidate the sale. The fact that goods were shipped as crockery, so as to make them acceptable to the railway, may have been done by the defendant's instructions, and the fact that action was brought in Missouri, a state not under prohibitory law, made the plea of such concealment of goods to evade the local law of another state, of no force.

RECOVERY-FOR GOODS SOLD TO RESIDENT OF PROHIBITION STATE.

In December, 1889, Chas. H. Graves' Sons, liquor dealers of Boston, sued Walter B. Johnson, of Bath, Me., for the value of certain liquors and cordials they had sold the defendant, who was, at the time of such sale, proprietor of a hotel in Bath. The goods were delivered, as per agreement, at the transportation office in Boston and forwarded by the company to the defendant in Bath. The case was first tried in the Superior Court of Massachusetts in February, 1891, and a verdict rendered for plaintiffs, which was set aside on appeal, but in a second trial Judge Hammond decided for the plaintiffs and held:

That the traveling agent of the complainant took the orders for the liquors in the supposed knowledge that the goods were intended to be sold in violation of the laws of Maine, but that the plaintiffs personally had no knowledge, thought or care as to what the defendant intended to do with the goods, their sole motive and intent being to sell the goods in Massachusetts in the usual course of business for pecuniary profit. That the sale was made and completed in Massachusetss and the plaintiffs were entitled to judg ment.

RECOVERY-NOTE VALID IN IOWA FOR BEER BOUGHT IN MISSOURI.

Van Vlect at Pella, Iowa, was engaged in the sale of beer contrary to law. The Columbia Brewing Company brought action against him on a note given for beer. The defendant set up the plea that the note was uncollectible because the sale was illegal under the Iowa law. He also filed a counterclaim for $36,000 for money paid plaintiff for beer in addition to the amount of the note. Judge Woolson of the United States Circuit Court ruled that the note given by the defendant in Iowa for beer purchased of plaintiff in Missouri was valid, and further that the money paid by defendant for beer ordered by him of plaintiff in Missouri

could not be recovered back. A verdict was returned against defendant Van Vlect for $9,000.

1898.

Columbia Brewing Co. vs. Van Vlect (Iowa), U. S. Circuit Ct.,

RECOVERY-ILLEGAL SALE-NO DEFENSE TO SUIT FOR PRICE OF LIQUOR.

Knowledge that the vendee of liquors is selling them in violation of law is no defense to an action by the vendor for their price.

Gambs vs. Sutherland's Estate (Mich.), 59 N. W. Rep. 652.

RECOVERY-DEFENDANT MUST PROVE ILLEGALITY OF SALE TO AVOID PAYMENT.—

In an action to recover the price of ale sold to defendant in New Hampshire, the burden of proof is on defendant to show that the sales were illegal, because in conflict with Gen. Laws N. H., ch. 109, declaring sales of intoxicating liquors to be unlawful only in towns that had passed a vote to that effect.

Portsmouth Brewing Co. vs. Smith (Mass.), 28 N. E. Rep. 1130.

RECOVERY-ILLEGAL SALES IN MISSISSIPPI.—

Rev. Code 1880, §1108, making non-collectible any debt for liquors sold in less quantities than one gallon, and declaring void all notes and securities given therefor, does not apply to a purchase on credit of liquors from an unlicensed dealer, as the statute is expressly limited to licensed dealers. Sanford vs. Starling & Smith Co., Mississippi.

RECOVERY-LIQUORS SOLD FOR USE IN PROHIBITION STATE.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has held:

(1) That liquor bought in Boston and New York before the passage of the Wilson law, with the intention of shipping it to New Hampshire, must be paid for by the defendants. The mere knowledge of the intention of defendants to bring the liquor into New Hampshire and sell it there does not make the contract invalid.

(2) Liquors delivered by the plaintiff in New York and

Boston upon orders taken of the defendants in New Hampshire by the plaintiff's agents, who knew or had reasonable cause to believe the liquors would be brought there and sold in violation of law, come under the original package decision of Leisy vs. Hardin and must be paid for by the defendants, if the sales were made prior to the passage of the Wilson law in August, 1891.

RECOVERY-VALUE OF ORIGINAL PACKAGES CAN BE RECOVERED.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine holds that, where intoxicating liquors are bought in another state with the intention of selling them in Maine, in violation of law, the seller cannot maintain an action to recover the purchase price in any of the courts of that state; and it is immaterial whether the seller knew of the illegal intention upon the part of the purchaser or in any way participated in the same. Where they are to be sold in the original packages, such sale not being illegal under the act of Congress of Aug. 8, 1880, the seller may bring his action to recover as on any other debt.

Knowlton vs. Doherty, 33 Atl. Rep. 18.

RECOVERY-PARTNER-POWER TO BIND FIRM.

Where a partner sells firm goods under an agreement that one-fourth of the price should be applied on a private debt owed by the partner to the purchaser, the firm cannot recover such one-fourth.

Grover vs. Smith (Mass.), 42 N. E. Rep. 555.

RECOVERY-COLLECTING OUTLAWED DEBT-IF DEBTOR ACKNOWLEDGES IT TO THIRD PERSON.—

A person alleged to be indebted to another admitted to a third person that he owed a note of about $60, which was just and due, and that he intended to pay it if ever he got well enough. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that this acknowledgment was not sufficiently definite to take the case out of the statute of limitations. The Court cited, with approval, the following rule: The new promise

must be definite, and show the nature and amount of the debt, or must distinctly refer to some writing, or to some other means, by which the amount and nature of it can be ascertained; or there must be an acknowledgment of a present subsisting debt, equally definite and certain, from which a promise to pay such a debt may be implied. Again, it has been held that the promise must be made to the creditor himself, or to an attorney or agent for the creditor, to repel the statute.

RECOVERY-OF MONEY LOANED FOR DRINK.—

Frederick Sheidel claimed the sum of $1,525.30 as against the estate of Charles L. Phillips for money loaned the deceased. The money was lent Mr. Phillips to gratify his taste for intoxicants against the wishes of his family and in defiance of it. Judge Hawkins ruled that as the Brooks law provided that the sale of liquor to intemperate persons by a saloonkeeper was a criminal offense and the value not recoverable by law, it was obvious the law applied with equal force to the man who furnished the drinks and to him who furnished the money to pay for them. There was no reason for discrimination between them. The law was applicable to and should be obeyed by all. It was an aggravation of the offense that the plaintiff acted in defiance of the wishes of Mr. Phillips' family, and under a well-known rule of law he would have no standing in a court of equity. . The Judge refused Sheidel's petition to have the case opened for a rehearing at the petitioner's cost.

F. Scheidel vs. Estate of C. L. Phillips, Decision by Judge Hawkins, Pittsburg, Pa., Sept., 1895.