Aldrich v. Parnell

• Decision Date: 18 October 1888
• Parties: ALDRICH v. PARNELL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

147 Mass. 409

18 N.E. 170

ALDRICH v. PARNELL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampshire.

October 18, 1888

COUNSEL

J.C. Hammond and

H.P. Field, for plaintiff.

D.W Bond, for defendant.

OPINION

C ALLEN, J.

It is a familiar rule that ordinarily a release of one of several joint tort-feasors discharges all; and this rule is applicable, even though there was no concert of action among them, provided the injury was single. Stone v. Dickinson 5 Allen, 29; Brown v. Cambridge, 3 Allen, 474; Goss v. Ellison, 136 Mass. 503. It has also been determined that this rule applies if a release is given to one against whom a claim is made, although he may not be in fact liable. Leddy v. Barney, 139 Mass. 394, 2 N.E. 107. The only question in the present case is whether this rule is applicable to a claim arising under Pub.St. c. 100, § 21; and we are of opinion that it is. By the provisions of that section the plaintiff had a right of action severally or jointly against all persons who, by selling or giving intoxicating liquor to her husband, had caused, in whole or in part, his intoxication, habitual or otherwise. The declaration contained two counts, the first of which charged sales extending over a period of time, and general injury to the plaintiff arising from her husband's acquiring confirmed habits of intoxication; and the second count charged that the defendant sold and delivered intoxicating liquor to her husband on the 26th of September, 1883, whereby he became intoxicated, and met with an injury.

The plaintiff, in support of her action, relied on evidence tending to show that her husband, from the 30th day of April to the 26th of September, 1883, often became intoxicated from drinking liquor obtained at the defendant's saloon, and at other places; and that in the afternoon of said 26th of September he drank liquor once at Gabb's saloon, once at the Mansion House, and afterwards, seven times, at the defendant's saloon, and became intoxicated, and met with an injury in consequence of such intoxication. In assessing damages, no distinction was made between the two counts, and a general verdict was returned, which may have been applicable solely to either count, or in part to each. The plaintiff, after bringing this suit, made a demand upon Gabb, and also upon the proprietor of the Mansion House, for damages sustained by reason of the intoxicating liquor sold to her husband by each of them on said 26th day of September, and also for selling liquor to him prior to that time. The instructions to the jury assumed that the defendant and Gabb and the proprietor of the Mansion House might all have contributed to the intoxication for which damages might be assessed; and it was ruled that a settlement with one of them would not operate as a release to this defendant, nor bar the present action.

The effect of this ruling would be to allow the plaintiff to recover from the various persons contributing to her husband's intoxication more than the amount of the injury sustained by her. If there were a dozen such persons, she might get what she could by successive settlements with 11 of them, and then recover from the twelfth as much as if she had received nothing from the...