Minnesota Supreme Court, 1890

State v. Schroeder

State v. Schroeder
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 13, 1890 · Gilfillan
45 Minn. 44; 47 N.W. 308; 1890 Minn. LEXIS 502 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Moses E. Clapp, Attorney General, and C. C. Houpt, for the State., Mason é Hilton, for defendant.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1902, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

State v. Schroeder

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

This case is entirely covered by the decision in State v. Schroeder, 43 Minn. 231, (45 N. W. Rep. 149.) While the primary purpose of the statute in respect to the sale of liquors is' to restrain sales to consumers and regulate drinking-places where liquors are sold and at once consumed, the only means adopted to effect that end is the prohibition of sales, without license, in quantities less than five gallons. The only test the statute makes of what is permitted and what prohibited to one without license is with respect to quantity. And, as said in the ease cited: “The necessity for first obtaining a license is not made to depend upon the general business of either the seller or the purchaser, or the nature of the package in which the liquor is contained, or the purpose for which the liquor is *45sold or purchased, or where it is to be consumed, but solely and exclusively upon the quantity sold or bartered.” What is there said ought to have set at rest any doubt there might be after the previous decisions of this court. The indictment does not set forth an offence, and the court below will, on the cause being remanded, grant the motion in arrest of judgment.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.