Commonwealth v. Warren
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co. (Mass. 1918)
- Commonwealth v. Sacks (Mass. 1913)
- Stanfield ex rel. Stanfield v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (Kan. 1936)
- Commonwealth v. Penn-Harris Hotel Co. (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas 1934)
- West v. Katsafanas (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932)
- People v. Armentrout (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1931)
- Meigs v. State of Florida (Fla. 1927)
- State v. Grays Harbor Commercial Co. (Wash. 1923)
- Greenwood v. John R. Thompson Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1919)
- City of Owensboro v. Evans (Ky. Ct. App. 1916)
- Alcorn Cotton Oil Co. v. State (Miss. 1911)
- People v. Ferraris (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1909)
- Groff v. State (Ind. 1908)
- Commonwealth v. Moriarty (Mass. 1942)
- Commonwealth v. Ober (Mass. 1934)
- Dennis v. State (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County 1931)
- People v. . Clair (N.Y. 1917)
- Commonwealth v. Mixer (Mass. 1910)
- Commonwealth v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (Mass. 1909)
- District of Columbia v. Lynham (D.C. Cir. 1900)
- People v. Snowberger (Mich. 1897)
- Commonwealth v. Connelly (Mass. 1895)
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
The statute makes a party liable for a sale by himself, or by his agent or servant, of milk not of the standard quality. St. 1886, c. 318, § 2. Mo criminal intent on the part of the master or principal is necessary in order to render him liable for a sale in violation of the statute, and he may consequently be held liable for an inadvertent sale in the course of his employment on the part of his servant or agent in violation of the statute. Commonwealth v. Gray, 150 Mass. 327. The instructions on this point were sufficiently favorable to the defendant. See Commonwealth v. Emmons, 98 Mass. 6; Commonwealth v. Kelley, 140 Mass. 441. The milk bought by the witness Kelly was purchased by and delivered to him as a part of his breakfast, and was just as much a sale as if a specific price had been put upon it, or it had been bought and paid for by itself. Commonwealth v. Worcester, 126 Mass. 256.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.