Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885

Commonwealth v. Patterson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided January 7, 1885 · Holmes

138 Mass. 498; 1885 Mass. LEXIS 236

Cases that cite this one

28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Wells v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1976)
Commonwealth v. Reid (Mass. App. Ct. 2008)
Derman Rug Co. Inc. v. Ruderman (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
John Carl English v. Virginia Probation & Parole Board (4th Cir. 1973)
W. R. Stephens Co. v. Haveland (Minn. 1952)
Murphy v. Traynor (Colo. 1943)
Cormier v. Bodkin (Mass. 1938)
Hamilton Manufacturing Co. v. City of Lowell (Mass. 1931)
State v. Bernweiser (Wyo. 1928)
State v. Bernweiser (Wyo. 1928)
Ex Parte Smith (Ala. 1924)
Lazarowitz v. Kazan (City of New York Municipal Court 1924)
People v. Gaydica (New York County Courts 1923)
United States v. Dowling (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1922)
People v. Hess (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1920)
People v. Weeks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1916)
People v. Weeks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1916)
City of Milwaukee v. Locher & Schefrin Co. (Wis. 1916)
Tenement House Department v. . McDevitt (N.Y. 1915)
Commonwealth v. Maddocks (Mass. 1910)
Patnoude v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad (Mass. 1901)
State v. Chisnell (W. Va. 1892)
Commonwealth v. Hagan (Mass. 1891)
Commonwealth v. Stevens (Mass. 1891)
Commonwealth v. Hayes (Mass. 1890)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Holmes, J.

The jury were instructed that, if the defendant was proprietor of the saloon, and made either of the two illegal sales that were testified to, they must return a verdict of guilty. This went too far. For, even if a single sale was sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction on this complaint, it certainly did not of itself constitute the offence set forth, or amount to more *500than evidence for the jury on which they might convict. A building cannot be said to be “ used ” for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, within the meaning of the Pub. Sts. c. 101, § 6, which makes it a nuisance, nor can the proprietor be said to “ keep or maintain such common nuisance ” within § 7, on the strength of a single casual sale, made without premeditation, in the course of a lawful business. Not only do the words “ used ” and “ keep or maintain ” import a certain degree of permanence, but the same idea is usually a part of the conception of a nuisance. • Exceptions sustained.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.