Confrey v. Catharine Stark.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Citation | 73 Ill. 187,1874 WL 8951 |
| Parties | PATRICK CONFREYv.CATHARINE STARK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. NATHANIEL J. PILLSBURY, Judge, presiding.
Mr. A. E. HARDING, for the appellant.
Mr. S. S. LAWRENCE, Mr. C. C. STRAWN, and Mr. L. G. PEARRE, for the appellee.
Appellee brought an action on the case, in the Livingston circuit court, against appellant, to recover damages claimed to have been sustained by her, by reason of the sale of intoxicating liquors to her husband by appellant. A trial was had before the court and a jury, resulting in a verdict for $1000, upon which the court, after overruling a motion for a new trial, rendered judgment, and to reverse it this appeal is prosecuted, and errors are assigned on the record.
It is urged that the court below erred in giving instructions for appellee. The first to which exceptions are taken is this:
“The court instructs the jury that, in Illinois, the law is, that every wife who shall be injured in her person, property or means of support by any intoxicated person, being the husband of any such wife, or in consequence of the intoxication, habitual or otherwise, of any such husband, shall have a right of action, in her own name, against any person who shall, by selling or giving intoxicating liquors to any such husband, have caused the intoxication, either in whole or in part, of any such husband, for all damages sustained, and for exemplary damages.”
This instruction was well calculated to mislead the jury in finding their verdict. This court, in previous cases, in construing this act, has held that, before there can be punitive damages allowed, it must be proved and found that the plaintiff had suffered actual damages, such as are designated in the statute; that injury must be sustained to the person, property or means of support, before plaintiff can recover damages to any extent, and that such damages must be found to have been sustained, before punitive damages can be awarded.
Where the husband has an abundance of means of support for himself and family, and liquor is sold to him, and he becomes intoxicated, but does not injure the person of the wife, or his or her property, we are at a loss to see how a recovery can be had, because there is no injury to either the person of the wife, to the property, or to her means of support; and it is only for the injury to some one or more of them that a right of recovery is given. The law was not intended as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... 331; Battleboro v. Wait, 44 ... [59 S.E. 586] ... Moies v. Sprague, 9 R. I. 541; Confrey v ... Stark, 73 Ill. 187 ... But the ... case of State v. Snuggs, 85 N.C ... ...
-
St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Wilson
...damages. 37 N.W. 118; 68 Me. 279; 70 Ill. 497; 71 Ill. 241; 30 Mich. 493; 50 Mich. 645; 51 S.W. 858; 34 S.W. 764; 21 Ohio 98; 72 Ill. 542; 73 Ill. 187; 38 Kan. 578; Tex. 679. Murphy & Mehaffy, for appellees. Where there is a conflict of testimony, the supreme court will not reverse merely u......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Pickett
...N.W. 118; 68 Me. 279; 70 Ill. 497; 71 Ill. 241; 30 Mich. 493; 50 Mich. 645; 51 S.W. 858; 70 Ill. 76; 21 Ohio St. 98; 72 Ill. 36, id. 542; 73 Ill. 187; 38 578; 58 Kan. 250; 68 Me. 287; 67 Me. 517; 30 Mich. 494; 86 Tex. 697; 54 Tex. 45; 79 Tex. 460; 75 Tex. 1; 62 Mo.App. 122. Oscar D. Scott, ......
-
Schiffman Bros v. Texas Co.
...is penal in character. See also Staninger v. Tabor, 103 Ill. App. 330; Mueller v. Bittle, 321 Ill.App. 363, 53 N.E. 2d 56; Confrey v. Stark, 73 Ill. 187; Brannan v. Adams, 76 Ill. 331; Dabney v. Manion, 155 Ill.App. Thus the crucial question of what Illinois statute of limitations applies m......